/ 


/ 


GIFT   OF 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.0rg/details/architectureasbrOOsnidric.h 


THE  NEW  SYSTEM  OF  THOUGHT. 

Which  Dr.  Snider   has    been  engaged  upon  for  some 
years,  embraces  the  following  works: 

I.    THE    PSYCHOLOGY. 

1.  Intellect  —  Psychology  and  Psychosis   .    .    $1.50 

2.  The  Will  and  its  Wobld $1.50 

3.  Feeling,  with  Prolegomena  (to  appear  Au- 

tumn, 1905)    , $1.50 

II.    HISTORY  OF  PHILOSOPHY. 

1.  Ancient  European  Philosophy $1.50 

2.  MODERN  European  Philosophy $1.50 

III.     INSTITUTIONS. 

1.  Social  Institutions $1.50 

2.  The  State $1.50 

IV.   >ESTHETIC. 

1.  Architecture $1.50 

2.  Music  (in  preparation) $1.50 

8.    World's  Fair  Studies  (Chicago  and  St.  Louis)    $1.50 

The  plan  has  also  in  view  a  psychological  treatment  of 
History  and  of  Nature. 


ARCHITECTURE 


As  a  Branch  of  Aesthetic 
Psychologically  Treated 


BY 

DENTON  J.  SNIDER 

li 


ST.  LOUIS,  MO. 

SIGMA  PUBLISHING  CO 

210  PINE  ST. 


2  L> 


Copyright  by 
D.  J.  SNIDER,  1905. 


!/f-  ^Y  iLu.,   iXj*/^ 


NIXON-JONES   PTG.  CO.,    215    PINE   ST.,  ST.    LOUIS. 


Table  of  Contents. 


PAGE. 

Introduction.     The  High  Building  . 

5 

Architecture.     Types 

.       34 

Chapter  First.  —  The    Oriental   Type. 

Egypt 

44 

I.  The  Pyramid 

.       60 

II.  The  Column 

.       98 

III.  The  Temple 

.     120 

Chapter  Second.  —  The  European  Type     142 

Sec.  First. — The  Classic  Style 

.     153 

I.  The  Hellenic  Period       .     . 

.     160 

A.  The  Hellenic  Norm     .     . 

.     .     185 

(I.)  Peristyle 

.     191 

(II.)  Cella        .... 

.     207 

(III.)  Entablature       .     . 

.     .     214 

B.  The  Hellenic  Orders 

.     .     222 

(I.)  The  Doric     .     .     . 

.     .     231 

(II.)  The  Ionic      .     .     . 

.     .     235 

(III.)  The  Corinthian 

.     .     240 

C.  The  Hellenic  City  —  Athene 

J     .     248 

( 

3) 

CONTENTS. 

II.  The  Hellenistic  Period   .     . 

1.  The  Oriental  Movement 

2.  The  Italic  Movement     . 

3.  End  of  Period      .     .     . 


.  274 

.  288 

.  290 

.  303 

III.  The  KoMAN  Imperial  Period       .     .  304 

1.  The  Centripetal   Movement  .  379 

2.  The  Centrifugal  Movement    .  382 

3.  End  OF  THE  Classic  World       .  386 

Sec.  Second. — The  Romanic  Style    .     .  392 

1.  The  Early  Romanic  Period     .  416 

2 .  The  East  Romanic  (  Byzantine  ) 

Period .  430 

3.  The    West    Romanic    (Roman- 

esque) Period 464 

Sec  Third.  —  The  Renascence     .     .     .  515 

1.  First  Period     .     .     .     .     .     .  535 

2.  Rococo 536 

3.  The  Nineteenth  Century  .     .  539 

Chapter  Third.  —  The  Occidental  Type  51 


Hrcbitecture* 

INTKOPUCTION. 

The  High  Building. 

At  the  beginning  of  Architecture  stands  a 
high  building  —  the  Pyramid;  at  the  end  of 
Architecture  in  our  own  day  has  risen  another 
high  building,  which  we  may  designate  for  the 
present  simply  as  the  High  Building.  The  archi- 
tectural movement  of  the  ages  lies  between  these 
two  high  buildings,  the  Oriental  and  the  Occi- 
dental, or  more  specially  the  Egyptian  and  the 
American.  The  latter  arose  through  a  new  con- 
structive principle  brought  to  light  toward  the 
end  of  the  Nineteenth  Century.  The  edifice 
built  of  ordinary  material  reached  its  limit  pre- 
viously somewhere  about  one  hundred  feet  above 
the  ground ;  at  once  we  see  it  shooting  up  to  four 
hundi'ed  feet  and  more  in  height.     Formerly  eight 

(5) 


6  ARCHITECTUBE  —  INTROD  UCTION, 

or  nine  storys  were  enough;  now  we  hear  of 
thirty,  doubtless  with  more  to  come.  Very 
remarkable  is  this  almost  instantaneous  upspring 
in  Architecture ;  we  are  led  to  query,  Is  there 
anything  to  correspond  with  it  in  the  man  of 
to-day ,  in  history,  in  the  present  age?  Whatever 
meaning,  good  or  bad,  may  be  ascribed  to  the 
American  High  Building,  it  rouses  on  the  spot 
the  impression  that  the  Architecture  of  the  world 
has  at  last  gotten  to  its  feet  after  lying  prostrate 
thousands  of  years,  and  proposes  to  stand  erect 
hereafter  in  its  supremacy  over  all  former 
edifices. 

The  general  character  of  the  Architecture  of 
the  Nineteenth  Century  makes  us  feel  that  it  is 
seeking  something  which  it  has  never  found.  It 
goes  back  to  the  past  and  reproduces  every  im- 
portant style  of  building,  and  still  is  not  happy. 
Classic  revivals,  Gothic  imitations,  Romanesque 
rehabilitations  we  have  had  in  abundance,  show- 
ing both  study  and  skill ;  but  what  ought  to  be 
is  not,  somehow.  We  are  not  quite  satisfied  with 
a  railroad  station  patterned  after  an  ecclesiastical 
edifice,  and  we  confess  a  certain  incongruity 
when  we  enter  a  banking  institution  doing  busi- 
ness in  a  Greek  temple,  and  a  still  deeper  dis- 
sonance is  felt  when  we  see  a  beer-house  with 
its  clinking  glasses  in  a  Gothic  cathedral.  The 
demand  for  Architecture  has  been  enormous  dur- 
ing the   Century,   but  the   outcome   has   been 


.^^%^'  \ 


/''■■  ^ 

THE  HIGH  BUILDING,  7 

largely  a  vast  number  of  learned  and  often  very 
successful  studies  in  the  History  of  the  Art. 
Thus  the  time  has  been  one  of  imitation  with 
many  new  turns  and  appliances,  as  well  as  skill- 
ful combinations  of  forms.  But  this  we  can 
hardly  call  creative  Architecture,  the  construc- 
tive Art  which  makes  itself  in  its  way  the 
adequate  expression  of  an  epoch. 

Still  we  have  to  grant  that  just  this  repro- 
duction of  past  architectural  forms  has  its  side  of 
agreement  with  the  total  movement  of  the  Cen- 
tury,  whose  spirit  has  been  historical,  evolution- 
ary, going  back  to  its  origin  and  investigating  its 
antecedent  stages.  Darwinism  is  the  typical  fact 
of  the  period,  digging  up  and  bringing  to  light 
all  the  shapes  through  which  man  has  passed  in 
his  Evolution.  In  a  similar  manner  Architecture 
during  the  Nineteenth  Century  has  returned  to 
its  beginnings  and  studied  all  the  styles  and 
forms  through  which  it  has  unfolded  into  the 
present.  But  it  has  been  limited  in  the  main  to 
reproducing  these  styles  and  forms  with  certain 
variations,  being  impotent  to  generate  a  new 
style  in  spite  of  certain  well-meant  efforts,  like 
that  of  King  Maximilian  of  Bavaria  in  his  new 
street  at  Munich. 

Thus  Architecture  would  seem  to  have  had  its 
creative  day  and  to  belong  really  in  its  deepest 
power  to  the  past,  being  classified  in  this  respect 
as  an  historic   Art,   along   with    Sculpture  and 


/ 


i^ 


8  AMCHITECTUBE  —  INTBODUCTIOm 

Painting.  It  has  produced  no  great  original  / 
master  during  the  Nineteenth  Century,  as  we  see 
in  other  departments  of  Art  and  Science ;  there 
is  no  Architect  corresponding  to  Goethe  in 
poetry,  to  Beethoven  in  music,  to  Hegel  in  phi- 
losophy, to  Darwin  in  science.  Thousands  upon 
thousands  of  costly,  spacious  structures  has  the 
Century  built,  but  no  epoch-making  edifice  like 
the  Parthenon,  like  St.  Peter's,  or  yet  like  the 
Great  Pyramid  —  constructions  which  concen- 
trate in  themselves  the  originative  architectonic 
soul  of  entire  peoples  for  ages. 

This  would  be  a  sorry  record,  were  it  not  for 
the  fact  which  must  now  be  mentioned.  Toward 
the  close  of  the  Centurj^^the  modern  High  Build- 
ing, usually  called  the  American  after  the  place  • 
of  its  origin,  began  to  raise  itself  from  the  Earth, 
in  which  act  we  may  conceive  Architecture  her- 
self leaping  up  from  her  previous  outstretched 
condition.  Out  of  this  new  appearance  came  a 
fresh  creative  breath  which  at  once  swept  through 
and  began  to  rejuvenate  the  whole  Art.  Here 
indeed  is  something  hitherto  unknown;  no  such 
construction  was  ever  before  possible .  Not  sim- 
ply another  style  is  this,  not  merely  another 
variation  of  the  old  tune ;  far  deeper  is  the  sig- 
nificance of  the  phenomenon,  since  a  new  prin- 
ciple of  building  has  come  to  light,  along  with 
new  materials  and  new  constructive  methods. 
Distinctly  does  the  American  High  Building  pro- 


THE  Hian  BUILDING,  9 

claim  itself  to  be  not  European,  not  Oriental, 
though  it  is  evolved  out  of  both  and  shows  affin- 
ities to  both  as  its  ancestors.  It  is  Occidental, 
representing  a  new  world  not  merely  of  Space 
but  of  Spirit,  not  only  of  men  but  also  of  insti- 
tutions, being  not  simply  a  new  Style  of  Archi- 
tecture but  a  new  Type  of  the  Art. 

This  is  not  saying  that  all  people  or  even  a 
majority  are  enraptured  with  the  High  Building. 
The  connoisseurs  of  Art  are  in  the  main  against 
it,  the  architects  as  a  body  have  not  been  friendly 
to  it,  the  very  builders  of  these  structures  seem 
unable  to  defend  their  work  in  any  adequate 
manner.  Still  such  buildings  continue  to  in- 
crease in  number  and  have  been  also  growing  in 
height.  From  their  two  starting-points,  Chicago 
and  New  York,  they  are  rapidly  passing  to  all  the 
lesser  American  cities.  They  are  crossing  the 
Atlantic  back  to  Europe,  through  a  tempest  of 
scorn  and  protest;  they  have  gone  forward  over 
the  Pacific  to  the  most  enterprismg  nation  of  the 
Orient,  Japan.  The  High  Building  begins 
already  to  span  the  globe,  and  gives  a  promise  of 
becoming  the  universal  Building,  the  world- 
edifice.  All  other  Architectures  have  been 
epochal  or  national,  limited  in  time  and  in  place; 
Egyptian,  Greek,  Eoman,  Gothic  they  are  named 
even  when  they  overflowed  into  other  peoples 
besides  their  originators.  The  High  Building  is 
to-day  the  architectural  loadstone  of  the  globe, 


10  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  INTBODUGTION. 

attracting  architects  from  abroad  to  study  its 
principles  and  their  significance.  It  is  the  only 
object  of  Art  that  draws  students  and  observers 
to  America  from  Europe.  In  all  the  rest  of  the 
Fine  Arts  the  stream  is  the  other  way,  running 
to  the  East,  not  to  the  West. 

What  is  it  that  gives  to  this  edifice  such  a  power 
of  overriding  all  opposition,  even  the  strongest? 
Some  secret  energy  it  possesses  which  laughs  at 
criticism,  even  that  of  the  prof ession ;  something 
it  has  within  it  mightier  than  any  antecedent 
form  of  Architecture  or  possibly  mightier  than  all 
of  these  forms  put  together.  The  Spirit  of  the 
Age  has  taken  up  its  abode  in  the  High  Building 
and  renders  it  impregnable  against  any  attack. 
The  critic  is  indeed  weak  compared  with  such  an 
antagonist ;  the  whole  army  of  opponents  cannot 
possibly  prevail  over  a  power  of  that  kind. 
So  the  High  Building  goes  its  own  triumphant 
way  through  the  very  hisses  of  the  multitude  of 
its  foes.  The  majority  may  and  do  vote  against 
it,  still  it  has  that  mighty  hand  with  it  which 
puts  down  the  majority  till  they  learn  its  sig- 
nificance and  are  whipped  into  voting  aright. 
Hence  the  first  and  fundamental  task  of  a  thinker 
on  Architecture  to-day  is  to  interrogate  the  High 
Building  and  to  make  it  tell  if  possible  the  secret 
of  its  being  —  tell  why  it  has  risen  up  before  us 
so  mightily  and  so  surprisingly  just  now  and  not 
hitherto,  just  here  and  not  elsewhere,  with  such 


THE  HIGH  BUILDING.  11 

a  triumphant,  gigantic  defiance  of  the  well- 
established  and  long-transmitted  canons  of  Art. 

I.  The  basic  fact  of  the  High  Building  is  that 
it  has  a  skeleton  within  itself  which  supports  the 
outer  enclosing  members  of  the  architectural 
body.  This  skeleton  is  usually  made  of  steel, 
sometimes  of  iron,  being  carefully  jointed  to- 
gether into  a  lofty  framework  which  is  separate 
from  what  it  supports.  It  holds  itself  up  first, 
and  then  it  upholds  the  outer  material  of  stone 
or  brick,  in  which  are  wrought  the  old  archi- 
tectural forms  handed  down  by  time.  These  are 
still  a  part  of  the  wall,  but  they  and  the  whole 
wall  with  them  are  now  borne  aloft  into  the  air 
by  this  new  inner  power  which  has  suddenly 
developed  in  the  structure. 

If  we  note  carefully  the  fact  just  presented,  we 
see  what  may  be  called  the  architectural  separa- 
tion of  the  ages,  the  separation  in  the  Enclosure 
between  the  supporting  and  the  supported,  be- 
tween the  upholding  and  the  upheld,  between  the 
burden-bearer  and  the  burden  borne.  In  all  pre- 
vious Architecture,  in  so  far  as  it  was  of  a  per- 
manent material,  the  encompassing  wall  had  to 
do  double  duty:  to  enclose  the  space  of  the 
building,  and  to  support  the  weight  of  the  roof 
and  its  own  pressure  upon  itself.  But  now  the 
wall  divides  within,  it  cracks  in  its  own  growth 
wide  open  lengthwise,  we  may  say ;  it  frees  itself 
almost  whoUy  of  its  oppressive,  burden-bearing 


12  ABGHITEGTUBE  -  INTRODUCTION, 

task,  and  devotes  itself  exclusively  to  its  space- 
enclosing  duty,  which  is  its  primal  architectural 
function.  This  epoch-making  liberation  of  the 
Enclosure  is  the  work  of  the  steel  skeleton,  and 
means  a  vast  new  freedom  of  development  for 
Architecture,  which  has  been  moving  from  its 
commencement  far  back  in  Egypt  just  toward 
the  enfranchisement  seen  in  the  High  Building. 
Thus  Architecture  reflects  the  unfolding  of  man 
himself  toward  a  completer  freedom,  and  be- 
comes truly  an  Art  mirroring  in  its  advance  the  *^ 
advance  of  humanity.  Nor  should  we  here  for- 
get to  add  that  the  nation  with  the  freest  spirit 
and  the  freest  institutions  will  produce  the  freest 
Architecture.  Not  without  good  reason  did  the 
High  Building  originate  in  America,  and  it  would 
seem  in  the  freest,  most  enterprising  portion 
thereof,  the  West. 

The  liberation  of  the  Enclosure,  hitherto  en- 
slaved to  its  burden-bearing  task,  is,  then,  the 
supreme  work  of  the  High  Building.  Within  it 
lies  ensconced  the  steel  skeleton  hidden  to  the 
vision  of  men,  yet  always  performing  its  function, 
upholding  the  encompassing  wall  which  is  visible, 
and  hence  presents  or  may  present  to  sight  all 
the  architectural  ornamentation  descended  from 
the  past.  These  two  elements,  the  space-enclos- 
ing and  the  burden-bearing,  thus  become  the 
outer  and  the  inner,  the  seen  and  the  unseen; 
previously  in  the  wall  of  stone  or  brick  they  were 


THE  Bms  B  uiLDma .  1 S 

united  immediately,  the  flesh  and  the  skeleton  of 
the  architectural  organism  were  one,  grown  to- 
gether as  it  were,  till  the  distinction  between 
them  evolved  itself,  somewhat  as  the  same  differ- 
entiation took  place  in  the  evolution  of  the  animal 
body.  Stone  and  brick  (with  glass  and  other 
materials)  are  now  reduced  to  a  casing  or  cover- 
ing, which  is  simply  supported  by  the  secreted 
giant  standing  upright ;  their  former  additional 
labor  of  support  has  been  taken  away  and  handed 
over  to  a  far  mightier  power.  This  division, 
then,  is  also  a  division  of  labor ;  the  enclosing 
wall  has  only  to  enclose  and  not  to  bear  the 
weight  of  the  building ;  in  which  fact  Architec- 
ture is  seen  developing  like  the  society  of  which 
it  is  the  home. 

Still  there  is  a  time  when  all  may  observe  this 
hidden  skeleton  in  the  very  process  of  formation. 
It  is  that  part  of  the  structure  which  is  first  set 
up  by  the  architect ;  not  now  is  stone  laid  upon 
stone,  brick  upon  brick,  one  after  the  other  in 
monotonous  succession.  The  steel  framework 
rears  itself  with  its  posts,  girders,  rods,  stretch- 
ing skyward  in  lofty  outline;  it  looks  as  if 
Architecture  herself  were  getting  to  her  feet  and 
preparing  to  put  on  her  clothes,  really  erect  for 
the  first  time  in  all  her  long  existence.  The  old 
wall  of  temple  or  cathedral  has  no  such  skele- 
ton except  what  lies  within  it  sleeping  the  sleep 
of  stone  itself.     But  now  we  may  see  that  ideal 


14  ARCHITECTURE  — mTBODUCTIOir, 

framework  of  the  ancient  edifice  separate  itself 
from  its  heavy  incumbrance  and  rise  up  to  a 
gigantic  height,  almost  in  a  day,  for  the  whole 
thing  is  carefully  calculated  and  made  ready  for 
adjustment  beforehand.  A  very  striking  and 
suggestive  object  is  the  High  Building  while  in 
the  course  of  erection,  manifesting  the  separa- 
tion and  birth  of  a  new  Architecture  in  the 
World's  History,  the  very  process  of  its  parturi- 
tion. The  slender  lines  of  network  against  the 
blue  Heaven  are  the  thews  of  our  new  infant 
Hercules,  made  of  the  most  tenacious  and  elas- 
tic material  known  on  our  earth.  True  it  is  that 
every  High  Building  in  its  construction  must 
re-create  the  architectural  movement  of  the  ages,  * 
and  take  up  into  itself  essentially  all  the  struc- 
tural forms  of  the  past. 

Thus  we  begin  to  penetrate  to  the  meaning 
of  the  High  Building  in  its  primal  constructive 
principle.  We  find  in  it  an  architectural  libera- 
tion which  has  a  counterpart  in  the  liberated 
man  who  reared  it,  mirroring  what  had  trans- 
pired in  his  own  soul.  This  is  not  a  liberation 
from  work  or  duty,  but  from  an  outside  subjec- 
tion to  a  task  not  its  own.  Behold  the  Enclosure 
of  the  High  Building;  with  ease,  with  an  airy 
lightness  and  a  new  joy  does  it  rise  or  perchance 
fly  upward  on  many  a  line  to  the  eaves,  being 
relieved  of  its  alien  service  of  stru2:g:lino:  under 
external   burdens  laid  upon  it,  such  as  roof  and 


THE  Hian  BVILDINQ.  15 

ceiling,  yea  relieved  of  even  holding  up  its  own 
weight  as  a  whole.  It  can  now  confine  itself  to 
its  native  task,  that  of  enclosing  and  of  expressing 
the  same  in  various  forms,  new  and  transmitted. 
All  architecture  is  Enclosure,  making  the  same 
an  institutional  abode  of  some  kind ;  but  when 
Architecture  becomes  a  liberated  Enclosure 
hitherto  subjected  or  enslaved  to  tasks  other 
than  its  own,  surely  a  new  architectural  epoch  v/ 
has  dawned. 

We  are  not  to  rest  till  we  see  and  express  for  ! 
ourselves  that  Architecture  and  all  Art  and  even 
Machinery  are  profoundly    connected  with   the 
social   Institutions    of    a   country,    from   which 
indeed   they   take    their    origin   and  character. 
To   some  people   it   may   seem   forced   to  join] 
together  the  new  liberation  of  Architecture  with  I  "^ 
the  new  liberation  of  Man  through  a  new  insti-  y 
tutional  world.     The  great  end  of  the  race  is  >A 
freedom,  and  that  end  with  its  striving  can  be.  / 
read   in  Architecture  as  well  as  in   Literature. 
Economic  science  tells  us  that  slave  labor  is  the 
most  expensive,   the   least   effective,    the   least 
adapted  to  the  purpose   of  labor.     There  is  a 
similar  law  of  economy   in  construction.     It  is 
doubtless    too     harsh     an     expression    to     call 
European  Architecture  enslaved ;  still  we  have  to 
say  that   it  is  not  yet  liberated  in   comparison 
with    the  High  Building.     Politically  Europe  is  [ 
not  enslaved,  but  the  American  holds  and  has  to 


16  AnCmTECTVBB  —  INTBODVCTIOn. 

hold  that  it  is  not  yet  liberated.  This  is  not 
saying  that  we  have  not  much  to  learn  from  our 
ancestral  home  across  the  water  or  that  America 
has  reached  the  grand  finality  in  the  matter  of 
political  freedom.  Structurally  we  have  the 
right  to  call  the  High  Building  of  the  present 
time  a  free  building,  though  it  may  and  must  be 
outstripped  in  the  future.  We  must  again  and 
again  repeat  in  our  thought  that  a  truly  liberated 
institutional  world  must  have  a  liberated  Home 
in  its  very  construction. 

In  such  fashion  we  s^ek  to  emphasize  the  fact 
which  runs  through  and  controls  this  entire  book 
of  ours:  the  inherent  necessary  connection  be- 
tween Architecture  and  Institutions,  both  of 
which  reach  back  to  Man  himself,  to  his  Ego  or 
Selfhood,  for  their  genetic  source  and  develop- 
ment. And,  as  already  said,  not  only  Architecture 
and  all  Art,  but  even  Machinery  may  claim  this 
tie  of  kinship  with  Institutions.  Relatively  the 
locomotive  is  the  free  machine,  self-moving,  de- 
termined from  within,  running  along  of  itself 
like  a  living  thing.  It  required  a  free  people, 
the  freest  in  Europe,  to  create  such  a  free  im- 
plement, which  can  be  handled  best  (other  things 
being  equal)  by  the  free  man,  who  knows  it  best 
and  regards  it  with  a  kind  of  inner  sympathy, 
feeling  in  it  some  far-off  suggestion  and  stimu- 
lation of  the  deepest  and  strongest  aspiration  in 
his  heart. 


THE  HIGH  BUILDma.  17 

II.  It  has  been  already  observed  that  the  ma- 
terial of  the  skeleton  is  for  the  most  part  steel  — 
which  fact  is  also  worthy  of  our  thought.  Steel 
is  not  found  in  nature,  several  processes  are  re- 
quired to  trana/orm  it  from  the  natural  ore  or 
earth.  Thus  it  is  emphatically  man-made,  not 
nature-made,  the  product  of  human  intelligence, 
which  puts  into  it  a  unique  character.  Its  three 
main  qualities  are,  formability,  tenacity,  elas- 
ticity, along  with  enormous  strength,  which  are, 
moreover,  compressed  into  the  smallest  space. 
Granite,  the  most  durable  material  of  nature,  has 
indeed  great  strength,  but  it  is  brittle,  it  will  not 
bend  like  steel  and  regain  its  position.  Wood  is 
somewhat  elastic,  but  has  little  tenacity,  little 
power  of  resistance  to  an  assailing  body,  and  is 
besides  combustible.  Thus  man  has  selected 
the  properties  which  he  wanted  and  which 
were  scattered  separately  through  various  ob- 
jects of  nature,  and  he  has  combined  them 
into  a  new  material  of  his  own  makingr. 
Behold  this  loose  red  earth,  it  is  nature's  iron 
(though  this  is  found  in  other  forms);  man 
takes  it  and  smelts  it  and  produces  a  new 
character  in  it,  calling  it  pig-iron,  which,  how- 
ever, is  brittle;  then  by  another  process  he 
can  make  it  malleable,  ductile,  tenacious; 
finally  by  still  another  process  he  converts  it 
into  steel,  in  which  he  may  well  behold  an 
image   of   himself.      For  steel  has    an    intense 

2 


18  ARCHITECTURE  —  INTRODUCTION. 

individuality,  probably  beyond  that  of  any 
natural  object;  if  assailed  from  without  it 
asserts  itself  through  its  hardness  and  strength ; 
if  it  yields  to  stronger  pressure  it  recov- 
ers itself  when  that  pressure  ,  is  removed. 
Steel  has  within  it  the  modern  man  with  his 
intelligence,  yea,  with  his  self-assertion.  It 
is  a  kind  of  universal  material  equal  to  any 
emergency,  made  up  of  traits  culled  from  the 
cosmos  and  compounded  into  a  new  character. 

Before  the  High  Building  appeared  stone  was 
the  main  material  of  permanent  Architecture.  It 
was  the  material  given  directly  by  the  bounty  of 
Nature,  upon  which  man,  therefore,  depended. 
To  Athens  the  neighboring  Pentelicus  furnished 
the  marble  for  her  Parthenon;  Rome  quarried 
travertine  for  her  structures  from  the  hills  not 
far  away ;  Egypt  floated  her  huge  granite  blocks 
from  Syene  down  the  Nile  to  their  destination. 
Very  limited  was  the  power  of  transportation  in 
the  old  ages  to  what  it  is  at  present.  Man  was 
determined  by  nature  and  Architecture  depended 
upon  the  material  which  she  furnished  at  hand. 
It  is  quite  the  reverse  in  the  case  of  steel,  as  we 
have  just  seen.  Moreover,  stone  produces  its\ 
architectural  effect  chiefly  through  massiveness ; 
the  wall  is  built  of  blocks  both  large  and  heavy ; 
they  cannot  be  easily  moved  from  their  place,  but 
persist  in  staying  just  there  and  so  withstand 
every  assault.     Thus  they  give  the  idea  of  pro- 


THE  HIGH  BUILDING.  19 

tection  through  sheer  gravity ;  inside  of  them  is 
the  divine  citadel,  where  dwells  the  God  whose 
encompassing  strength  is  suggested  in  these  im- 
movable walls.  Hence  it  comes  that  the  Archi- 
tecture of  stone  is  so  decidedly  down-bearing, 
from  the  Pyramid  to  the  Capitol  at  Washington, 
though  the  architect  seeks  by  numerous  devices 
to  counteract  this  impression.  The  heavy  Doric 
column  of  early  Greece  (and  even  of  Egypt)  was 
fluted  in  order  to  give  the  eye  a  line  for  running 
upward  against  the  crushing  downwardness  of 
the  short  thick  shaft.  Herein  again  the  High 
Building  has  the  opposite  tendency,  for  its  native 
sweep  is  upward,  having  mastered  the  down-bear- 
ing oppressiveness  of  mere  gravity,  which, 
though  it  has  to  be  present,  is  overborne  into 
the  soaring  lines  of  the  Enclosure  skyward. 

Here  we  may  mention  the  third  material  for 
permanent  buildings,  that  is,  relatively  perma- 
nent —  brick.  This  is  not  directly  found  in  nature 
but  has  to  be  made 'by  man  who  performs  in  one 
way  or  other  the  petrifying  process,  first  prepar- 
ing the  material  which  is  a  kind  of  earth,  then 
moulding  it  into  the  desired  shape,  and  finally 
baking  it  in  the  fire  or  sun.  Thus  out  of  the 
earth  under  his  feet  man  makes  the  needed  stone 
when  he  cannot  obtain  it  otherwise,  re-enacting 
nature's  process.  Indeed  the  stone-maker  has 
recently  been  supplanting  the  stone-cutter,  or 
rather  supplanting  mother  Nature  herself  as  the 


20  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  INTBODUGTION, 

original  producer  of  stone.  Moreover  this  baked 
earth  (terra  cotta)  is  found  to  be  the  best  fire- 
proof casing  for  iron  and  steel,  and  hence  is  ex- 
tensively used  in  the  High  Building,  which  has 
in  addition  a  large  area  of  ghiss,  also  a  man-made 
product  from  ingredients  given  by  nature. 

Thus  we  see  that  the  High  Building  has  far 
more  of  man  in  it  than  any  other  structure  ever 
reared  by  him;  not  simply  does  he  put  it  to- 
gether out  of  materials  furnished  to  him  ready- 
made,  but  he  makes  these  materials  anew,  trans- 
forming various  physical  constituents  into  a 
wholly  different  object  with  its  own  special  char-  ^\l 
acter.  This  character  of  the  material  he  has  to 
build  before  he  builds  his  house.  In  a  manner 
he  has  to  reconstruct  Nature  herself  before  he 
can  construct  the  High  Building.  Herein  lies 
a  capital  difference  from  all  preceding  Archi- 
tecture, which  is  ultimately  determined  by  Na- 
ture, even  if  man  shapes  and  trims  and  employs 
its  products  for  his  own  ends.*  Another  image 
of  the  new  world's  freedom  we  find  now  before 
us :  man  must  make  the  material  which  consti- 
tutes his  outer  dwelling-phice,  as  he  must  make 
the  law  which  constitutes  his  institutional  home, 
even  it  be  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

HI.  In  this  respect  we  may  again  observe  that 
the  High  Building  mirrors  that  institutional 
world  in  which  it  first  came  to  light  and  which 
really  produced  it.     European  Architecture    in 


TEE  EIQH  BUILDINa,  21 

its  materials  goes  back  to  a  nalftral  origin,  as  we 
have  seen.  European  society  likewise  has  its 
foundation  in  classes  based  upon  birth,  that  is, 
upon  distinctions  springing  from  nature.  Roy- 
alty and  nobility  are  born  into  their  social  con- 
dition and  not  directly  produced  by  it;  that  is, 
they  are  nature-made  not  man-made.  America 
has  no  such  distinction  of  rank  given  by  birth ; 
man  has  to  win  his  own  distinction  if  he  be  dis- 
tinguished. Not  only  must  he  be  born  again, 
but  he  must  bear  himself  again,  must  recreate 
himself  in  order  to  be  anything  distinctive.  The 
Architecture  of  stone  is  European  and  essentially 
aristocratic,  the  Architecture  of  steel  is  demo- 
cratic from  the  foundation  upward. 

Undoubtedly  we  find  in  Europe  many  prepara- 
tions for  the  High  Building,  indeed  distinct 
prophecies  of  its  coming.  The  iron  construction 
which  was  put  together  lengthwise,  and  of  which 
a  noted  instance  was  the  Tubular  Bridge  over  the 
straits  to  the  Isle  of  Wight,  hints  the  possibility 
of  an  analogous  erect  structure  of  the  same 
material.  Then  there  is  the  Eads  Brido^e  thrown 
across  the  Mississippi  at  St.  Louis  in  wide  spans  — 
can  it  not  be  made  to  stand  on  end?  Already 
it  holds  itself  up  from  pier  to  pier  through 
its  intricate  network  of  interlinking  steel,  and 
also  supports  the  vast  weight  of  human  beings 
with  their  traffic  passing  over  the  river.  The 
Titan  is  lying  across  the  stream  and  lets  a  line  of 


22  ABCBITEGTUBE  —  INTBODUCTION. 

wagons  and  railroad  trains  run  along  his  extended 
body  from  shore  to  shore  with  perfect  security. 
Do  you  suppose  he  is  going  to  lie  there  forever? 
This  is  prostrate  construction  still,  European 
we  may  call  it,  designating  a  stage  of  its  evolu- 
tion. Moreover  the  bridge  is  without  Enclosure, 
is  purely  supporting ;  but  the  next  step  is  easily 
taken,  namely,  to  make  this  framework  support 
alight  covering,  such  as  terra  c®tta  and  glass,  of 
which  the  Crystal  Palace  furnishes  a  very  sugges- 
tive instance.  But  the  final  colossal  act  is  when 
the  Titan  begins  to  raise  himself  up  and  to  stand 
erect  towering  skyward  in  all  his  sublimity. 

Greek  imagination  has  fabled  of  giants  of 
superhuman  strength  who  had  to  be  put  down  by 
the  higher  Gods  of  intelligence  through  hurling 
the  yet  mightier  forces  of  nature  against  these 
prodigious  monsters  of  primeval  ages.  One  of 
these  hoary  giants  was  Enceladus,  who  was 
thrust  under  Mount  Etna,  and  buried  beneath 
masses  of  rocks  piled  up  cloud  ward  to  keep  him 
in  subjection.  Still  he  turns  and  rolls  under  his 
burden,  causing  the  earth  to  roll  with  him  far  and 
wide  in  vast  undulations  upsetting  lands  and 
cities.  Struggling,  turning  from  this  side  to 
that,  breathing  heavily,  which  breath  becomes  at 
times  a  consuming  flame  scattering  volcanic  lava' 
and  ashes,  the  giant  cannot  get  up.  He  is  like 
the  Pyramid,  like  the  whole  line  of  structures  of 
the  old  world,  which  with  all  its  mighty  striving 


THE  HIGH  BUILDING,  23 

yet  lies  prostrate .  But  hark !  another  voice  you 
can  hear ;  it  is  the  new  world  calling  eut  from 
the  top  of  its  tower,  the  High  Building,  across 
the  Atlantic  to  the,  ancient  Architecture  lying 
under  mountains  of  stone  piled  up  toward  heaven : 
*'  Enceladus  arise." 

IV.  A  favorite  way  of  accounting  for  the 
High  Building  is  to  find  the  causes  of  its  origi- 
nation. Of  these  many  have  been  assigned  for 
the  new  appearance.  Particularly  the  lack  of 
land  for  business  purposes  on  Manhattan  Island 
is  said  to  have  forced  construction  upwards  in- 
stead of  allowing  it  to  spread  out  freely  over  the 
surface  of  the  earth.  Very  doubtful  is  the  ulti- 
mate validity  of  such  an  argument.  Why  did 
not  the  commercial  center  of  London  put  up  the 
High  Building  first?  For  there  land  is  worth 
more  than  anywhere  else  probably  on  the  globe. 
Moreover  the  erection  of  the  Hiorh  Building 
started  independently  on  the  Western  prairie  at 
Chicago  where  there  is  room  enough  for  expan- 
sion. Utterly  inadequate  is  such  an  explanation, 
which  would  require  the  High  Building  to  have 
appeared  nineteen  centuries  ago  ia  the  Roman 
Forum,  where  were  concentrated  the  commerce 
and  the  government  of  the  world.  A  good 
reason  for  a  style  of  construction  must  indicate 
its  architectural  evolution,  must  show  it  as  a 
manifestation  of  the  spirit  of  the  age.  Some  saj 
that  the  High  Building  is  a  product  of  the  com- 


24  ABOHITEOTUBE  —  INTRODUCTION. 

mercialism  of  our  country.  But  commercialism 
has  certainly  existed  a  long  time  in  Europe,  where 
we  find  many  buildings  devoted  to  gain.  The 
question  then  comes  up,  why  sho'xld  American 
commercialism  rear  a  structure  of  this  peculiar 
kind?  The  answer  would  have  to  indicate  that 
America  has  something  underneath  her  commer- 
cialism which  expresses  itself  constructively  in 
the  High  Building. 

The  source  of  it  has  been  traced  by  one 
writer  to  the  need  of  fire-proof  buildings  revealed 
by  the  Chicago  and  Boston  confiagrations.  And  so 
the  reasoning  runs  —  the  need  of  this  and  the 
need  of  that  was  the  cause,  while  the  deepest 
need  is  never  mentioned.  It  is  perhaps  not  an 
easy  task  to  express  adequately  in  Literature 
what  the  High  Building  expresses  in  Architecture. 
We  see  it  to  be  useful  for  many  purposes,  but 
what  is  its  supreme  use?  In  fact  no  predicate 
of  mere  Utility  can  sound  the  depth  of  its  real 
meaning ;  there  is  something  in  it  beyond  any 
demand  of  utility,  something  which  employs 
utility  as  its  means.  Just  here  lies  the  inner 
character  of  Art  which  in  its  supremacy  has  the 
power  of  using  utility  itself  for  its  end.  The  High 
Building  has  a  hundred  uses,  meets  a  hundred 
requirements  for  business,  but  these  alone  would 
never  have  called  just  it  into  existence,  unless 
it  had  seized  upon  them  and  utilized  them 
for  its  purpose.     What  is   this   purpose?     That 


THE  HIGH  BUILDING.  25 

is  indeed  the  fundamental  question,  which  re- 
quires us  to  see  the  High  Building  subserving 
not  merely  the  uses  of  commerce  (though  this  it 
does),  but  also  the  uses  of  commerce  subserving 
it,  for  it  too  has  its  own  use,  its  own  ground  of 
existence.  Man  ought  to  be  the  master,  not  the 
slave  of  utility. 

There  is  a  new  building  impulse  abroad  in  the 
land  —  an  impulse  which  drives  the  nation  to 
express  itself  in  Architecture.  The  institutions 
of  America  will  not  permanently  house  them- 
selves in  structures  which  the  wholly  different 
institutions  of  other  peoples  in  other  ages  have 
erected  for  their  abode.  If  a  nation  has  any  con- 
structive genius,  such  as  had  the  old  Egyptians, 
the  old  Greeks,  and  the  medieval  Christians,  it 
will  build  its  character  into  the  Architecture 
which  it  employs.  The  ultimate  use  of  the  High 
Building  is  to  give  architectural  expression,  or 
formulation  if  you  will,  of  the  American  institu- 
tional world.  It  is  a  great  business  society 
under  one  roof;  it  facilitates  intercommunication 
between  man  and  man ;  it  minimizes  Space  and 
Time,  the  primordial  obstacles  of  Nature  which 
human  association  has  more  and  more  to  over- 
come. Commerce  uses  the  Hio^h  Buildings  for 
its  end,  but  the  point  to  see  is  that  the  High 
Building  uses  Commerce  for  its  end.  Man,  the 
individual  having  really  gotten  on  his  feet  for 
the  first  time  in  the  History  of  the  World,  Ar- 


26  ABCHITECTUBE  —  INTBOD  V  C  TION. 

chitecture  will  tell  him  the  fact  if  it  performs  its 
true  function.  It  too  must  stand  up,  for  hither- 
to it  has  been  recumbent,  quite  submissive  to 
gravity,  to  outer  circumstances,  or  at  most 
struggling  to  rise  like  the  Gothic,  without  much 
success.  Indeed  the  Gothic  Cathedral  seems  a 
human  being  lying  on  the  earth  with  face  look- 
ing eagerly  and  even  anxiously  upwards  to 
Heaven,  in  fervent  supplication,  with  one  arm 
or  both  (in  the  two  spires),  stretching  out  as 
far  as  they  can  reach  toward  the  Invisible  and 
pointing  sometimes  with  a  hundred  fingers  (as 
in  the  turrets  of  the  Milan  Cathedral)  to  the 
Beyond.  One  feels  like  shouting  to  it,  **  Get 
up,  man;  "  but  it  answers,  **  Gladly  would  I, 
but  I  cannot,  the  burden  is  too  heavy."  Mean- 
while another  voice  deeper  in  tone,  yet  in  a  com- 
forting whisper  comes  through  the  air  saying, 
'*  Wait,  the  time  is  not  yet  ripe,  but  soon  will 
be.  That  Gothic  aspiration,  crushing  its  sides 
painfully  together  for  inner  elevation,  and  out- 
wardly tapering  heavenward  into  pointed  nothing- 
ness with  agonizing  struggles,  is  not  to  end  in 
empty  striving,  but  is  to  be  realized.  I  say  the 
time  is  coming  when  those  heavy  manacled  walls 
with  their  ponderous  buttresses  of  stone  are  to 
be  liberated  of  their  intolerable,  down-bearing 
burden,  and  when  the  whole  building  will  soar 
bodily  upward,  overtopping  in  its  flight  even  the 
tip  of  the  highest  spire  of  Europe." 


THE  HIGH  BUILDING.        .  27 

V.  When  we  come  to  look  inside  the  High 
Building,  the  elevator  is  what  first  demands  our 
thought.  Primarily  it  utilizes  the  upper  parts  of 
the  building,  it  hoists  the  people,  saving  their 
time  and  strength.  The  old  stairway  is  substan- 
tially abolished,  having  become  a  mere  appendage 
or  ornament  which  winds  caressingly  around 
the  elevator  to  the  top,  ivy-like.  Man  no  longer 
lifts  himself  painfully  step  by  step  to  the  upper 
storys  but  is  lifted ;  the  mechanical  labor  of  his 
muscles  is  done  by  a  flying  machine.  The 
purgatorial  climbing  has  been  transformed  into 
a  paradisiacal  flight.  It  is  the  elevator  which 
emphasizes  the  motive  for  the  strong  mounting 
lines  on  the  front  of  the  building;  the  eye  is 
carried  up  to  the  top  outside  ere  the  body  is 
borne  upward  inside.  Verticalism  is  necessarily 
the  principle  of  the  High  Building,  the  upbear- 
ing sweep  of  the  spirit. 

Architecture  has  a  tendency  to  become  more 
and  more  organic  in  its  evolution,  as  if  it  were 
approaching  man's  own  framework  as  its  ideal 
end.  In  this  respect  the  High  Building  is  the 
most  organic  of  all  structures,  being  literally 
most  nearly  human.  We  have  already  noted  its 
erect  position,  its  standing  up  like  a  man.  Then 
that  differentiation  of  the  skeleton  is  a  prodigious 
advance  in  organic  development,  since  former 
structures  of  stone  and  brick  are  flesh  and  bone 
in  one  mass  somewhat  like  certain  lower  orders 


28  ABCHITECTUBE  —  IKTBODVCTION. 

of  animate  creation.  The  evolution  of  Archi- 
tecture has  a  certain  parallelism  with  the  evolu- 
tion of  an  organism.  Perhaps  the  least  organic 
of  all  great  structures  is  the  first  High  Building, 
the  Pyramid,  as  the  last  one  is  most  organic. 

It  is  true  that  the  frame  house  of  wood  also 
erects  a  kind  of  skeleton  composed  of  beams 
large  and  small,  upon  which  the  outer  covering 
of  boards  is  fastened.  Thus  the  construction  of 
the  High  Building  has  its  primal  suggestion  in 
that  made  by  the  ordinary  carpenter.  The  log- 
cabin,  however,  superposes  its  material  like 
blocks  of  stone.  Thus  both  the  Temple  of 
marble  and  the  High  Building  can  find  their 
prototypes  in  timber  construction. 

Keeping  up  the  analogy  of  an  organism  we 
may  regard  the  elevator  as  the  nervous  function 
of  the  High  Building  concentrated  into  a  spinal 
cord  along  the  back  of  the  structure.  The 
moving  crowds  of  people  form  the  circulation, 
each  individual  being  a  globule  as  it  were,  of 
whom  20,000  pass  in  and  out  of  one  such  build- 
ing daily  in  Chicago,  according  to  aTkept  record. 
Nor  must  we  fail  to  note  this  central  cavity  around 
which  the  whole  is  built  as  in  the  human  body, 
while  into  this  cavity  come  light  and  air  as  if  it 
too  had  lungs  as  well  as  the  people  moving 
throuo^h  it.  The  offices  massed  around  these  inner 
parts  may  be  deemed  the  muscles  of  the  colossal 
organism,  and  are  the  seat  of  its  activity.     Such 


THE  HIGH  B  UILDINQ .  29 

are  some  of  the  homologies,  as  the  comparative 
anatomist  calls  them,  between  man's  own  inner 
structure  and  that  which  he  has  put  into  the 
High  Building,  the  idea  being  that  he  instinct- 
ively builds  after  the  pattern  of  his  own  organ- 
ism, which  is  indeed  his  primordial  house.  The 
abode  of  his  institutional  life  develops  out  of  his 
natural  life,  as  institutions  themselves  have  their 
starting-point  in  nature,  and  unfold  out  of  it 
into  their  own  world. 

Certainly  it  is  a  suggestive  thought  that  the 
High  Building  is  the  most  organic  of  all  archi- 
tectural shapes,  if  we  consider  it  biologically,  in 
comparison  with  the  human  organism.  This  last 
artificial  home  of  man  seems  to  be  approaching 
in  semblance  his  primal  natural  home;  or  his 
second  colossal  body  he  appears  instinctively  to 
fashion  after  his  first  little  body.  Architecture 
is  to  construct  the  abode  of  associated  Man,  his 
institutional  dwelling-place.  Not  for  one  indi- 
vidual does  this  Art  truly  exert  its  power,  but  it 
will  enclose  and  cover  over  the  Community,  the 
State,  the  Church,  or  the  spirit  which  makes 
them.  The  High  Building  in  its  way  houses  a 
social  Whole,  or  at  least  a  laro^e  fragment  of 
organized  Man,  whose  latest  edifice  begins  to 
have  such  a  striking  resemblance  to  the  physical 
body,  which  thus  seems  to  be  the  ideal  protofype 
for  the  Architecture  of  human  association. 

VI.  If  we  turn  to  the  outside  of  the  High 


so  AECHITECTUBE  —  INTBODUCTION. 

Building,  we  fiud  it  covered  with  a  skin,  that 
thin  covering  of  glass  and  terra  cotta  already 
inentioned.  But  at  this  point  a  more  important 
problem  comes  up,  the  problem  of  the  facade  or 
the  proper  expression  to  be  put  into  the  surface 
of  the  wall,  which  is  exacting  and  also  extensive. 
Here  we  touch  the  spot  where  the  Architect  of 
the  Hio^h  Buildino^  has  been  least  successful. 
Often  the  external  appearance  is  meaningless, 
putting  us  to  flight  with  its  blank  monotony. 
The  openings  in  the  Enclosure,  such  as  doors  and 
windows,  are  the  very  mouths  of  the  structure, 
which  with  their  mouldings  and  ornaments 
ought  to  speak  (but  usually  do  not)  to  the  out- 
side world  and  tell  their  own  character  as  well  as 
reveal  something  of  what  is  inside  the  building. 
If  I  were  asked.  Which  is  the  finest  High 
Building  yet  erected,  I  would  be  puzzled  to  give 
an  answer.  Some  have  one  merit  and  some  an- 
other, a  concentration  of  excellence  has  hardly 
yet  taken  place.  Accordingly  I  would  be  in- 
clined to  say  that  the  typical  High  Building,  the 
one  which  embodies  all  its  good  points  as  well 
as  reveals  its  limitations,  has  probably  not  yet 
been  built.  In  fact  it  is  still  too  young  to  have 
reached  even  a  full  youthful  development,  not 
to  speak  of  ripe  manhood.  It  is  hardly  yet 
twenty -five  years  old;  in  the  growth  of  an 
architectural  form  or  style  that  is  a  very 
brief  period.      More  than  two    hundred    years 


THE  HIGH  BVILDINQ.  31 

elapsed  between  the  first  ancestral  Doric  tem- 
ple of  Sicily  and  its  perfect  flowering  in  the 
Parthenon.  Evolution  is  not  in  a  hurry  but 
takes  all  the  time  it  wants.  We  may  well  think 
that  the  High  Building  has  not  yet  had  a  chance 
to  unfold  all  that  there  is  in  itself,  being  still 
largely  in  the  bud,  though  vigorously  blossom- 
ing. A  style  or  type  of  Architecture  has  a  tend- 
ency to  concentrate  itself  into  one  complete  and 
often  colossal  expression  of  itself,  as  we  see  in 
St.  Sophia's  and  St.  Peter's  cathedrals,  in  the 
temples  Pantheon  and  Parthenon.  In  like  man- 
ner an  epoch  epitomizes  itself  in  a  great  man,  as 
statesman,  conqueror,  philosopher  —  Pericles, 
Alexander,  Aristotle.  The  High  Building  has 
not  yet  developed  its  complete  typical  example, 
with  all  its  possibilities  fully  evolved  and  visible 
in  its  members. 

In  Europe  there  is  no  High  Building  in  the 
Oriental  or  in  the  American  sense  —  which  fact 
many  will  regard  as  a  mark  of  good  taste  and 
even  of  civilization.  Europe  has  indeed  very 
high  steeples  to  its  churches,  some  of  them 
higher  than  the  highest  Pyramid.  St.  Peter's 
probably  might  have  the  best  claim  to  be  a  High 
Building.  But  it  is  a  rather  low  though  large 
edifice,  surmounted  by  a  lofty  dome.  These 
two  portions  show  its  dualistic  character,  the 
one  is  more  down-bearing  and  the  other  more 
up-bearing.     Two  different   structures,  the  one 


82  ABCHITECTUHE  —  INTBODUCTION. 

on  top  of  the  other,  constitute  the  largest  and 
probablj  the  most  typical  building  in  Europe. 
Biit  such  is  neither  the  Egyptian  Pyramid  nor 
the  American  Hio^li  Buildino^. 

Thus  we  see  a  new  distinction  arising  in  Archi- 
tecture as  well  as  in  Art  and  in  Universal  History. 
The  High  Building  brings  emphatically  into  con- 
sciousness the  fact  that  the  world  with  its  move- 
ment of  civilization  is  no  longer  divided  into 
Asia  and  Europe  or  Orient  and  Occident,  but 
the  division  has  become  threefold  —  Orient, 
Europe  and  Occident.  Moreover  the  three  form 
one  great  process  of  man's  development  which 
shows  itself  in  far  clearer  and  completer  outline 
than  ever  before.  In  other  departments  the 
same  distinction  has  begun  to  appear.  In  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  we  are  forced 
to  distinguish  the  Occidental  State  in  decided 
contrast  with  both  the  European  and  the  Ori- 
ental. Herein  our  Architecture  has  begun  to 
follow  and  to  mirror  our  institutional  world, 
and  the  other  Fine  Arts  are  destined  to  advance 
on  the  same  path  to  the  same  goal. 

The  liberation  of  man,  then,  we  are  beginning 
to  build  into  brick  and  stone.  This  very  edifice, 
the  High  Building,  shows  such  a  liberation  in  its 
constructive  principle,  constituting  a  new  Type  jy 
of  Architecture,  the  Occidental.  Enceladus,  the 
suppressed  and  oppressed  giant  of  the  aforetime, 
has  here  gotten  on  his  feet,  but  transfigured  from 


THE  HIGH  BUILDma.  33 

the  destructive  revolutionist  into  the  peaceful 
evolutionist.  Still  not  everywhere  is  he  arisen 
from  his  massive  prison  of  rock,  and  enabled  to 
stand  up  in  his  freedom.  Hence  often  ominous 
tones  reach  our  ears  from  afar  with  a  threatening 
stress  which  can  only  mean  that  Enceladus  will 
and  must  arise. 

But  here  before  us  stands  the  risen  Titan,  the 
High  Building,  to  whom  we  shall  for  the  present 
bid  farewell  with  the  certainty  of  meeting  him 
again.  We  may  well  imagine  him  endowed  with 
a  voice,  yea  with  the  gift  of  song,  a  shred  of 
which  floats  around  the  globe  hymning  sym- 
pathetically of  his  unrisen  brother  still  crushed 
beneath  the  tyrannous  mountain  of  stone,  yet 
rolling  and  struggling  and  sighing  for  the  com- 
ing liberation. 

"  Under  Mount  Etna  he  lies, 

It  i;^  slumber,  it  is  not  death ; 
For  he  struggles  at  times  to  arise, 
And  above  him  the  lurid  skies 

Are  hot  with  his  fiery  breath. 

See,  see,  the  red  light  shines! 

'Tis  the  glare  of  his  eyes  I 
And  the  storm  wind  shouts  through  the  pines 
Of  Alps  and  Apennines : 

^  Enceladus  arise  '  ".    ^ 
3 


Hrcbitecture 

IN  ITS  HISTORIC  EVOLUTION. 

Beginning  with  the  germinal  starting-point  in 
the  evolution  of  Architecture  we  must  grasp  it 
as  an  Enclosure,  which  is  separate  from  yet 
determined  by  what  is  enclosed.  Such  are  the 
two  elements  of  the  architectural  nucleus :  The 
enclosing  and  the  enclosed,  which  are  to  pass 
through  a  long  and  complicated  transformation 
in  their  descent  down  the  ages. 

Now,  this  Enclosure,  when  it  becomes  properly 
Architecture,  is  built  by  associated  Man  primarily 
for  the  creative  Spirit  of  his  Universe  and  there- 
fore of  himself  as  endowed  with  this  power  of 
association.  If  Architecture  is  rightly  the  home 
of  associated  Man,  the  earliest  Architecture  will 
be  the  home  of  that  principle  or  being  which 
(34) 


OBIENTAL,   EUROPEAN',  OCCIDENTAL.        35 

creates  Man  associative,  or  unites  him  in  tribe, 
city,  nation.  Thus  the  people  erect  their  first 
architectural  house  to  the  God  who  makes  them 
a  people. 

Man,  possessing  Institutions  through  associa- 
tion, builds  an  abode  for  them  as  for  his  supreme 
Self,  and  it  is  this  building  of  an  institutional 
home  which  calls  forth  Architecture.  A  church, 
a  court-house,  also  a  school-house  is  the  home 
of  an  Institution  in  which  not  the  individual,  but 
the  associated  Man  has  his  abode,  and  which  will 
be  truly  architectural  if  the  structure  expresses 
the  indwelling  purpose  which  causes  it  to  be 
reared. 

As  God,  the  supreme  Architect,  makes  the 
cosmos  as  the  created  manifestation  of  Himself, 
so  Man  as  Architect  after  Him  re-creates  this 
divine  manifestation  in  a  temple  or  dwelling- 
place,  which  thus  becomes  the  Enclosure  of  the 
divinely  creative  Spirit.  The  God-consciousness 
in  Man  is  the  source  of  all  great  Architecture, 
which  begins  with  a  mighty  emphasis  in  Egypt. 
So  Architecture  has  a  lofty  origin;  it  is  essen- 
tially Man  re-enacting  the  work  of  God  creating 
the  Cosmos  as  the  outer  abode  or  manifestation 
of  His  Will  or  creative  power.  Or  we  may  say 
that  Man  making  a  sacred  Enclosure  which  re- 
veals God  creating  the  world  is  truly  architec- 
tural. With  some  such  thought  working  in  their 
souls,  the  old  Egyptians  conceive  their  primal 


36  ABCHITECTUBE  —  ITS  E VOL  VTION. 

deity  to  be  a  builder,  thus  expressing  their  own 
deepest  spirit  to  be  architectonic. 

It  is  evident  that  Architecture  is  fundamentally 
twofold :  the  Outer  distinct  from  yet  determined 
by  the  Inner,  the  Enclosure  without  and  the 
Enclosure's  God  within,  the  built  manifestation 
as  external  and  the  essence  as  internal.  It  is 
this  separation  which  gives  to  it  its  place  in  the 
total  movement  of  the  Fine  Arts  or  the  so-called 
Presentative  Arts,  of  which  Architecture  is  prop- 
erly the  second  stage  or  division. 

So  much  is  general,  but  Architecture  must  be 
specialized  by  each  people  and  each  age.  The 
Architecture  of  the  Greeks  is  the  Enclosure  of 
that  which  creates  Greece,  of  the  creative  spirit 
of  the  Greek  institutional  world.  The  Greek 
temple  is  a  structure  manifesting  and  mirroring 
the  originative  Idea  of  Hellas  and  of  its  view  of 
the  Divine  Order,  the  latter  being  really  the 
Olympian  counterpart  of  Greek  Institutions. 
The  same  must  be  said  of  every  great  typical 
edifice,  the  Pyramid,  the  Gothic  Cathedral,  the 
High  Building :  it  represents  its  nation,  its  pe- 
riod, possibly  its  city.  Thus  Architecture  with 
all  its  universality  has  to  specialize  the  Divine 
Home  and  become  many  Architectures,  of  dif- 
ferent types,  styles,  systems,  each  of  which  is 
in  the  grand  process  of  Evolution,  and  unfolds 
in  an  historic  line  from  the  beginninor.  A  vast 
metamorphosis   of   architectural  shapes    unrolls 


OBIENTAL,  EUBOPEAN,  OCCIDENTAL.        37 

before  us  with  subtle  transmutations  of  one  into 
the  other,  making  a  kind  of  panoramic  spectacle 
of  ever-shifting  forms  externally  yet  having  a 
profound  inner  connection  with  the  movement 
of  civilization  itself.  The  right  study  and  ap- 
preciation of  Architecture  is  the  getting  inside 
this  movement,  and  the  going  with  it  in  thought 
and  imagination  through  all  its  Protean  trans- 
formations. 

There  is  a  time  when  Architecture  is  pre-his- 
toric,  corresponding  to  the  development  of  man 
himself.  Such  a  period  belongs  to  Archaeology 
rather  than  to  Art,  and  will  have  to  be  omitted 
from  the  present  exposition.  Moreover  there 
are  some  historic  peoples  who  build  monumen- 
tally and  some  who  do  not.  There  are  nations 
who  literally  build  their  history ;  these  are  the 
architectonic  nations,  which  reveal  the  line  of 
the  development  of  Architecture  from  its  begin- 
ning down  to  the  present. 

Now  this  line  of  historic  development  shows,  as 
already  stated,  three  supreme  divisions  —  Orient, 
Europe,  Occident.  History  is  no  longer  repre- 
sented by  the  dualism,  Orient  and  Occident,  the 
latter  standing  for  Europe.  The  world-historical 
movement  has  now  become  triune,  having  quite 
girdled  the  globe,  and  is  returning  to  the  Orient 
in  a  spiritual  circumnavigation.  Europe  is  not 
the  end  of  the  process  of  Universal  History,  but 
a  stage,  very  important  unquestionably.     What 


38  ABCHITEOTUBE  —  ITS  E VOL UTION. 

European  civilization  means  we  are  to  see  in  the 
stage  which  is  beyond  it,  and  is  its  outcome. 

It  is  the  supreme  interest  of  the  study  of  Archi- 
tecture that  it  has  evolved  distinctly  three  com- 
prehensive forms  or  types  of  itself  corresponding 
to  Orient,  Europe  and  Occident.  No  other  Art 
has  in  such  a  pronounced  way  shown  the  three 
world-historical  stages,  which,  however,  are  sure 
to  reveal  themselves  in  every  Art  and  Science 
with  time,  in  every  kind  of  spiritual  activity 
practical  and  theoretical.  As  the  Occident  be- 
comes more  deeply  conscious  of  itself  and  of  its 
own  evolution,  it  must  see  with  greater  clearness 
this  triple  division  of  its  spirit  which  is  stamped 
upon  the  globe  itself. 

Accordingly  the  architectural  movement  of  the 
world  is  primarily  divided  into  Oriental,  Euro- 
pean, Occidental.  We  are  not  to  forget,  how- 
ever, that  these  divisions  are  really  stages  of  one 
process,  ultimately  that  of  the  All  or  the  Universe 
(Pampsychosis),  which  seizes  upon  Architecture 
also,  for  its  expression.  Moreover,  every  stage 
or  part  of  this  supreme  Totality  must  suggest 
the  great  architectural  Whole  of  which  it  is  a 
member.  Thus  we  see  one  underlying  process  in 
each  detail  as  well  as  in  the  entire  sweep  of  the 
Art. 

And  now  rises  the  problem.  How  shall  we  give 
in  advance  some  idea  of  these  three  grand  Types 
of  the  world's  Architecture?     If  not   an  exact 


OBIENTAL,  EUROPEAN,  OCCIDENTAL.        39 

definition,  at  least  some  general  conception  ought 
to  be  furnished  at  the  start.  We  have  already 
noted  that  in  all  Architecture  the  primal  fact  is 
that  it  must  be  an  Enclosure  or  space-surround- 
ing, whereby  there  is  room  inside.  The  wall 
goes  along  with  building  through  its  whole  de- 
velopment. Now  the  wall  has  to  upbear  the  roof 
and  also  itself.  Hence  it  has  in  itself  and  must 
show  the  principle  of  support.  On  the  other  hand 
the  wall  has  to  be  made  of  strong  heavy  material ; 
thus  through  its  own  gravity  and  of  that  which 
it  supports,  it  has  a  down-bearing  principle 
which  is  the  opposite  of  the  preceding  tendency. 
We  see  that  the  Enclosure  has  in  its  very  nature 
a  divided  duty,  a  conflict  We  may  call  it,  between 
two  opposing  forces,  the  up-bearing  and  the 
down-bearing ;  and  this  conflict  runs  through  all 
Architecture  from  Orient  to  Occident.  Every 
stone  wall  of  a  structure  we  may  conceive  to  be 
in  a  struggle  between  flying  heavenward  and 
sinking  earthward  —  between  elevation  and  de- 
pression, exaltation  and  abasement,  between  Mind 
and  Nature,  those  two  eternally  fighting  genii, 
yet  twins  of  the  same  All-Mother.  Such  is  the 
double  character  of  the  Enclosure,  really  the  ger- 
minal point  of  future  constructive  development. 
All  Architecture,  we  hold,  is  the  Home  of 
associated  Man  in  some  form,  of  Man  in  Society, 
being  the  Enclosure  of  Spirit  not  as  individual 
but  as  universal  or  seeking  to  be  so.     Such  an 


40  ABGHITEGTURE  —  ITS  E VOL  UTION. 

Enclosure  must  rise,  surround,  cover  over,  must 
have  in  it  elevation.  And  yet  it  must  also 
weigh  down,  be  massive  and  mighty  in  stone, 
thus  showing  a  descending  tendency  under  its 
superincumbent  burden.  The  first  may  be 
called  its  suggestion  of  Spirit,  the  second  its 
suggestion  of  Matter;  the  first  points  inward  to 
the  Enclosure's  God,  the  second  is  simply  the 
Enclosure  taken  by  itself  as  wall.  Thus  in  Archi- 
tecture there  is  an  up-bearing  principle  conso- 
nant with  our  Ego,  but  it  is  laden  with  a  down- 
bearing  principle  corresponding  with  our  body. 
Now  the  movement  of  Architecture  will  be 
to  transfigure  more  and  more  the  material  down- 
bearing  principle  into  the  spiritual,  up-bearing 
principle.  The  massive  Enclosure  weighed 
down  by  its  own  and  alien  burdens  is  slowly  to 
be  enfranchised  by  time;  in  that  grand  battle 
of  the  two  spirits  which  lies  within  its  very  soul, 
the  up-bearing  will  slowly  conquer  the  down- 
bearing,  and  assimilate  even  Matter  to  its  flight 
upward.  The  thickest  heaviest  wall  on  this 
earth  was  architecturally  the  first  one  made  by 
Man,  that  of  the  Pyramids;  while  the  lightest, 
most  soaring  wall,  being  liberated  from  sustaining 
all  weight,  even  its  own,  is  the  last  one  made  by 
man,  that  of  the  High  Building.  Between  these 
two  kinds  of  wall  lies  the  world's  Architectural 
development,  embracing  some  5000  or  possibly 


OBIENTAL,    EUROPE  AIT,  OCCIDENTAL.        41 

6000  years.     This  development  in  its  complete 
sweep  we  may  state  as  follows. 

I.  The  Oriental  Type,  which  in  its  early  and 
original  form  is  represented  by  Egyptian  con- 
struction; the  rise  is  present,  but  overcome, 
overwhelmed,  suppressed;  hence  the  tendency 
is  down-bearing,  and  carries  along  the  Ego, 
struggling  upward  but  overborne.  Or  we  may 
say,  the  up-bearing  germ  starts  but  is  not  yet 
developed,  breaking  out  into  multitudinous  in- 
cipient shapes,  which  make  Egypt  the  fertile 
mother  of  all  later  developed  forms  of  Architec- 
ture, make  it  the  potential  stage  of  the  future 
architectural  reality. 

II.  The  European  Type^  which  shows  the 
double  movement,  the  rise  and  the  fall,  the 
struggle  from  below  and  the  pressure  from  above 
in  their  most  intense  dualism  and  opposition, 
with  victory  sometimes  on  this  side  and  some- 
times on  that,  but  never  lasting  for  either.  This 
is  the  second  grand  stage  of  the  world's  archi- 
tectural process,  as  yet  the  most  fully  developed 
within  itself,  the  most  diversified  and  the  most 
fruitful. 

III.  The  Occidental  Type  —  which,  though 
just  begun,  expresses  the  rise  triumphant  in  and 
through  a  new  constructive  principle ;  the  down- 
bearing  Enclosure  is  itself  now  upborne  to  the 
altitude  of  the  loftiest  structure  of  the  Orient, 


42  ABOniTEGTUBE  —  IT8  EVOL UTION. 

to  which  in  this  regard  the  modern  High  Build- 
ing is  a  return. 

Such  is  the  architectural  movement  of  the 
world  in  its  largest  outline,  forming  in  itself  a 
vast  process  which  includes  yet  determines  all 
other  processes,  styles,  systems,  forms.  Yet  it 
is  itself  but  an  expression,  and  but  one  expres- 
sion of  the  Absolute  Self,  of  the  psychical 
movement  of  the  Universe,  of  what  we  have 
elsewhere  called  the  Pampsychosis.  In  fact 
Architecture^  ultimately  has  as  its  function  to 
erect  a  worthy  abode  of  this  Absolute  Self  which 
it  mirrors  more  and  more  adequately  through  its 
advancing  construction.  Thus  it  becomes  truly 
an  Art,  imparting  to  the  people  who  look  upon 
it  and  enter  into  it  a  consciousness  of  their  self- 
hood as  a  people  or  a  nation,  as  well  as  of  their 
own  divine  Ideal  or  Ruler  of  the  Universe. 

Architecture  does  not  become  an  Art  till  it  is 
educative,  till  the  people  behold  in  it  the  creative 
spirit  of  their  institutional  world,  religious, 
political,  domestic.  In  Architecture  we  are 
finally  to  see  that  the  building  is  an  Enclosure 
for  that  which  built  it,  to  see  the  spirit  erecting 
for  itself  a  dwelling-place  harmonious  with  itself. 
Then  for  us  such  a  structure  is  profoundly  edu- 
cative, and  fulfills  the  basic  purpose  of  all  Art. 

Nature,  the  primal,  immediate  manifestation 
of  the  creative  principle  of  the  Universe,  is  made 
over  by  Architecture  into  a  new  Nature  or  Cosmos 


ORIENTAL,  EUROPEAN,- OCCIDENTAL,        43 


which  reveals  the  special  character  of  the  nation 
constructino:  it.  Hence  it  comes  that  each  nation 
will  have  its  own  way  of  building  its  spiritual 
home  and  of  expressing  itself  in  Architecture. 
And  yet  all  these  national  or  even  continental  dif- 
ferences are  penetrated  with  a  common  principle, 
are  in  fact  manifestations  of  one  fundamental 
process,  which  creates  them  and  becomes  the 
process  in  each  of  them. 

Architecture  (as  well  as  other  Arts)  will  show 
in  its  evolution  man  living  in,  conflicting  with, 
and  then  re-creating  his  institutional  world. 
This  exists  at  the  start,  yet  is  to  be  perpetually 
transformed  by  the  members  of  it  who  are  born 
into  it  and  have  to  reproduce  it  anew,  in  a  line  of 
changing  shapes  which  reflect  the  changing  con- 
sciousness of  man  as  he  unfolds  into  a  higher 
freedom.  Such  a  row  of  architectural  shapes, 
arranged  in  the  long  gallery  of  time,  will  give  the 
historic  Evolution  of  Architecture  as  it  keeps 
step  with  the  movement  of  civilization  itself. 


CHAPTER  FIRST. 

The  Oriental   Type. 

When  we  speak  of  the  Orient  we  have  to  im- 
agine a  huge  cauldron  in  which  are  fermenting 
and  germinating  all  the  possibilities  of  the  whole 
human  race  for  all  coming  time.  Asia  seems  to  be 
the  All-Mother  of  what  has  been,  is,  and  will  be. 
Europe  has  by  no  means  exhausted  the  potentiali- 
ties of  the  Orient,  it  has  unfolded  but  a  small 
part  of  them  in  the  past  few  thousand  years  of 
its  development.  We  may  suppose  that  the  des- 
tiny of  our  globe  is  to  unfold  the  germs  of  the 
many  unrealized  civilizations  which  first  budded 
in  the  great  River- Valleys  of  the  East,  and  which 
are  apparently  still  awaiting  their  turn  in  the 
cycle  of  the  total  evolution  of  our  planet.  For 
this  reason  Asia  is  called  mysterious  by  the 
(44) 


THE  ORIENTAL  TYPE.  45 

European;  it  is  largely  undeveloped,  unspoken 
and  unspeakable  for  our  consciousness ;  very  old 
it  is,  and  yet  the  baby  of  this  earth  in  spite  of 
its  ancient  wisdom  and  hoary  monuments. 

Especially  is  Asia  the  birth-place  of  Eeligion 
and  of  Religions,  of  quite  all  of  them  in  fact, 
in  so  far  as  they  rise  above  savagery.  Europe 
has  had  for  a  long  time  substantially  one 
Religion,  and  that  came  from  Asia;  also  it  has 
one  fundamental  language,  which  likewise  goes 
back  to  the  same  source.  Similarly  Architecture, 
which  is  so  profoundly  connected  with  Religion 
in  its  origin,  springs  from  the  Orient.  Associ- 
ated Man  there  made  the  earliest  worthy  dwell- 
ing-place of  the  God  who  made  him  and 
endowed  him  with  the  power  of  association,  and 
hence  of  building  a  temple.  The  religious  Insti- 
tution first  called  forth  Architecture  to  erect 
its  institutional  home  through  human  co-opera- 
tion. The  united  nation  builds  a  worthy  abode 
for  the  God  who  has  made  it  a  united  nation. 
This  united  nation  is  one  form  of  associated 
Man,  though  not  the  only  one;  as  the  race 
unfolds  these  forms  of  Association,  or  Institu- 
tions, Architecture  will  be  invoked  to  erect  their 
dwelling-places. 

I.  Throughout  the  Orient  we  find  the  Gave- 
Temple y  which  is  as  good  a  starting-point  as  any. 
In  it  the  Enclosure  is  wholly  given  by  Nature,  and 
is  one  with  Earth  itself.     The  Cave  has  the  wall, 


46         ABGHITEGTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIBST. 

the  roof,  and  often  the  pillar  or  column,  but  not 
as  separate,  existing  in  their  distinct  character. 
Thus  the  God  is  conceived  to  have  built  his  own 
first  temple,  which  man  enters  with  the  feeling 
of  worship.  Still  in  Greece  grot  and  cavern  were 
the  abodes  of  the  Nymphs  and  other  lesser  divini- 
ties, while  the  Great  Gods  of  Olympus  properly 
dwelt  in  structures  made  by  man,  like  the  Olym- 
pieion  and  the  Parthenon.  But  Nature's  temple 
still  remained  even  at  Athens,  and  had  its  place, 
not  on,  but  in  the  Acropolis.  Still  to-day  the 
image  of  the  Virgin  may  be  found  in  sacred 
recesses  where  of  old  dwelt  some  heathen  deity. 
In  the  German  North  the  groves  may  have  been 
God's  first  temples;  hardly  was  this  the  case  in 
Egypt. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  man  soon  oegan  to 
transform  the  Cave-Temple,  till  finally  he  made 
what  is  known  as  the  Rock-Temple,  of  which 
colossal  examples  are  found  in  India  (Ellora), 
and  also  in  Egypt  (Ipsamboul).  Some  of  these 
Rock-Temples  belong  to  the  later  stages  of 
Architecture,  showing  how  men  cling  to  the 
early  forms  of  their  religion.  They  likewise 
stand  in  relation  to  the  Rock-Tombs  of  which  so 
many  line  the  stream  of  the  Nile,  so  that  it  flows 
through  a  vast  necropolis  during  its  Egyptian 
passage.  Indeed  one  long  city  of  the  dead  is 
the  Valley  of  the  Nile  for  700  miles,  from 
Elephantine   to  the  sea. 


fB^  oniENTAL  TYPS,  47 

Finally  the  basic  elements  of  the  Enclosure  are 
to  be  separated  from  their  immediate  oneness 
with  the  earth  and  are  to  be  set  up  in  their  own 
peculiar  shapes.  The  wall,  the  roof,  and  the 
pillar  become  distinct  and  individualized,  being 
built  up  by  the  human  hand.  Thus  a  great 
transition  is  accomplished :  the  .movement  from 
the  nature-made  to  the  man-made  temple  for  the 
divine  dwelling-place.  Architecture  is  now  truly 
born,  coming  forth  into  the  light  of  the  sun  out 
of  its  dark  womb  of  earth. 

II.  In  the  present  •  connection  we  are  to  con- 
sider only  that  Architecture  which  primarily  and 
originally  belongs  to  the  Orient,  and  thence 
passes  to  Europe.  But  Europe  in  its  turn  influ- 
enced the  Architecture  of  the  Orient  both  in 
ancient  and  in  modern  times.  For  instance  the 
Greek  Temple  and  Byzantine  Church  went  to  the 
East  and  united  with  the  native  spirit  in  produc- 
ing new  forms  of  construction.  These  we  shall 
speak  of  later :  at  present  we  wish  to  consider 
the  old  Oriental  Architecture. 

In  a  general  way  it  is  manifest  that  the  Orient 
represents  the  implicit,  germinal  stage  of  Archi- 
tecture and  of  all  Art.  It  has  suggestions  of 
most  of  the  forms,  which  afterwards  unfolded 
in  Europe.  We  shall  note  again  and  again  how 
some  new  European  style  will  go  back  to  the 
Orient  and  apply  motives  already  found  in  its 
Architecture.     The  Greek  column  was  born  in 


48  ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIRST, 

the  East,  being  seen  there  in  its  three  basic 
divisions,  Doric,  Ionic,  and  Corinthian,  though 
these  are  by  no  means  fully  developed.  The 
arch  was  employed  in  the  Orient  long  before  the 
building  of  Rome,  vrhose  invention  it  is  some- 
times declared  to  be.  Also  vaulting  is  found  in 
the  ruins  along  the  Euphrates  and  the  Nile.  It 
has  even  been  supposed  that  what  we  call  Roman 
Architecture  arose  in  the  Orient  under  the  suc- 
cessors of  Alexander,  whose  Greek  architects 
combined  the  column  and  other  structural  forms 
of  Greece  with  the  arch  and  vault  of  Eastern 
countries.  Even  the  Gothic  pointed  arch  is  a 
later  Oriental  fancy. 

Of  the  architectonic  nations  of  the  Orient, 
the  chief  is  pre-eminently  the  Egyptian.  In 
fact  the  ancient  people  of  the  Nile  valley  were 
the  greatest  builders  the  world  has  yet  seen. 
From  them  properly  proceeds  the  architectural 
evolution  which  has  already  so  nearly  encircled 
the  globe.  From  them  starts  the  line  of  Archi- 
tecture which  moves  across  the  North-Temperate 
Zone,  through  Asia  (of  which  Egypt  is  spirit- 
ually apart),  Europe  and  America. 

Moreover  the  material  of  Egyptian  construc- 
tion was  stone,  which  lay  along  the  banks  of  the 
Nile.  Egypt  had  no  wood  for  this  purpose.  It 
knew  how  to  made  brick,  but  refused  to  employ 
them  for  its  great  works.  Egypt  was  trained 
to  its  constructive  power  by  working  in   stone, 


THE  ORIENTAL  TYPE.  49 

especially  in  granite.  It  had  to  overcome 
and  bend  to  its  plan  the  hardest,  most  refrac- 
tory material  in  nature.  It  became  a  gran- 
itic people,  the  spirit  took  the  character  of 
what  it  wrought  in  so  long  and  so  labori- 
ously. If  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  is  a  stone 
builder,  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates  on  the 
other  hand  is  a  brick-builder,  using  a  small, 
easily  made  and  manipulated  material,  with  no 
lasting  power.  Hence  it  has  largely  returned  to 
earth  whence  it  came,  without  any  defiance  of 
Time,  such  as  we  may  see  in  the  Pyramid,  Obe- 
lisk and  Temple  of  Karnak.  If  the  material  be 
so  enduring,  what  must  be  the  mind  that  over- 
comes it?  The  hand  that  shapes  granite  has 
something  in  it  more  eternal  than  granite.  The 
Egyptian  soul  was  daily  trained  in  its  doctrine 
of  immortality  by  working  in  granite. 

III.  Egypt  must  be  deemed  the  fountain  of  all 
the  great  Architecture  of  the  Ages.  Its  people 
were  builders,  lived  to  build  and  this  was  the 
ultimate  object  of  their  existence.  The  State 
was  chiefly  a  building  State,  it  ruled  in  order  to 
construct  great  works.  We  read  of  Egyptian 
conquerors,  but  they  were  the  exception.  The 
world-historical  function  of  Egypt  was  Archi- 
tecture, and  it  has  remained  and  will  probably 
forever  remain  the  single  architectural  nation  of 
History,  creative  in  this  Art,  creating  the  forms, 
methods,  and  many  of  the  implements  of  vast 

4 


50  ARCHITEGTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST. 

construction.  Egypt  was  architect  to  the  race, 
which  after  such  instruction  could  build  its  ade- 
quate Enclosure  for  spirit  and  then  turn  to  some 
other  task. 

A  very  peculiar  situation  gave  the  opportunity. 
In  all  other  lands,  even  the  most  favored,  man 
has  to  labor  for  his  bread.  But  in  Egypt 
Father  Nile  replenished  the  larder,  while  the  mild 
climate  required  little  in  the  way  of  shelter  or 
clothing.  Thus  the  economic  problem  of  man 
was  solved  almost  without  work  for  his  suste- 
nance. Still  he  must  do  something  or  run  wild. 
There  is  no  doubt  that  the  State  seized  the  pro- 
ductive principle  of  the  land,  the  bounty  of  the 
Kiver,  and  compelled  the  inhabitants,  ever  multi- 
plying on  this  free  food,  to  labor  for  their  liveli- 
hood in  the  erection  of  the  colossal  works  which 
we  still  see.  Thus  the  whole  people  devoted 
themselves  all  the  time  to  Art  or  chiefly  to 
Architecture;  they  really  had  nothing  else  to 
do,  being  fed  by  the  hand  of  the  God.  In  this 
way  the  millions  of  Egypt  were  trained  to  toil, 
and  through  it  to  Art.  Day  in,  day  out  we  bring 
before  us  a  whole  people  toiling  who  are  artistic 
workers,  and  whose  Art  is  not  to  get  their  bread, 
which  is  sent  from  above  by  the  unseen  pro- 
vider. 

At  this  point  rises  the  question :  What  does 
this  Egyptian  Art,  occupying  an  entire  nation 
thousands  of  years,  represent?     Tell  us  the  con- 


THE  OBIENTAL   TYPE.  51 

tent,  purpose,  scope  of  it,  if  any  such  explanation 
be  possible.  Hardly  other  can  it  be  than  the 
fact  just  stated :  the  Egyptian  was  given  food  by 
the  God  in  order  to  represent  the  divine  Giver. 
Here  we  must  take  a  glance  at  the  physical  situ- 
ation of  Egypt  with  its  River  in  order  to  under- 
stand its  Art. 

IV.  The  old  historian,  Herodotus,  said  that 
Egypt  was  *«  the  gift  of  the  Nile."  Physically 
this  is  the  simple  fact,  the  soil  of  the  country  has 
been  brought  down  and  deposited  by  the  great 
River,  But  it  may  also  be  affirmed  that  spiritual 
Egypt  has  been  moulded  by  the  Nile  into  its 
peculiar  character.  The  sources  of  the  stream 
were  unknown  in  antiquity,  the  vast  waters  came 
flowing  down  from  the  unseen  into  the  seen 
world,  and  bringing  their  gratuitous  blessings. 
Moreover  the  very  form  of  the  Nile  was  like  an 
arm  with  its  hand  stretching  out  from  the  Invis- 
ible. At  the  Delta  the  River  divided  into  five 
natural  branches  and  poured  through  them  into 
the  sea.  Was  not  this  the  God's  arm  with  hand 
and  five  fingers  reaching  forth  from  the  Beyond 
with  this  divine  bounty  for  His  people?  Such  is 
the  unique  fact  in  regard  to  the  Egyptian  River, 
moulding  a  nation,  and  therewith  moulding  all 
civilization  at  its  fountain-head  —  truly  the  most 
influential  River  on  our  globe. 

It  IS  no  wonder,  then,  'that  the  ancient  ob- 
server pronounced  the  Egyptians  to  be  the  most 


52  ABCIIITECTUBE  —  OHAPTEB  FIRST. 

religious  of  men.  Dependence,  Faith  in  the 
Unseen,  Gratitude  to  the  Gods  with  a  never-end- 
ing ritual  of  a  sacerdotal  caste  ramifying  every- 
where, spring  from  the  situation.  The  Giver 
(as  Nile)  is  invisible,  yet  here  are  his  gifts, 
specially  our  daily  bread  handed  to  us  almost 
outright.  Now  the  great  object  of  the  Egyptian 
Keligion  is  to  make  the  Unseen  seen,  to  bring  the 
deity  out  of  the  unknown  realm  into  the  known, 
at  least  in  part.  At  this  point  we  may  begin  to 
grasp  the  enormous  significance  of  Art  to  Egj^pt, 
the  function  of  this  Art  being  primordially  to 
make  the  invisible  Giver  visible  to  His  people. 
Sculpture  will  seek  to  present  His  actual  form, 
putting  into  limits  the  unlimited,  yet  seeking 
always  to  suggest  that  which  is  without  bounds 
by  colossal  shapes,  whereof  the  Sphinx  is  a 
notable  example. 

But  chiefly  the  Egyptians  sought  to  house 
their  God,  to  put  into  a  sacred  Enclosure  their 
transcendent  Benefactor.  Can  we  bring  Him 
down  from  the  beyond  and  give  Him  an  adequate 
home  among  ourselves?  Thus  the  Valley  of  the 
Nile  becomes  architectural,  builds  for  dear  life 
and  dearer  immortality,  does  little  else  but  build. 
Still  the  Unlimited  transcends  the  limit,  and 
moves  beyond;  the  Egyptian,  however,  keeps  on 
building  in  pursuit  of  Him,  the  God,  but  seems 
unable  to  get  Him  fully  enclosed,  though  adding 
Temple    to  Temple  and  even  piling  Pyramid  on 


THE  ORIENTAL  TYPE.  53 

Pyramid.  Such  is  the  mighty  striving  of  Egypt 
in  its  attempt  to  overtake  and  enclose  the  ever- 
escaping  unknown  Divine  Giver,  which  fact  con- 
stitutes the  fundamental  element  of  its  character. 
Through  Art  and  particularly  through  Architec- 
ture the  old  people  of  the  Nile  endeavor  to  con- 
fine the  Infinite  in  the  Finite  and  thus  to  know 
it  and  to  commune  with  it  as  their  own. 

V.  Very  decidedly  is  the  history  of  Egypt 
reflected  in  its  Architecture.  When  the  nation 
was  occupied  in  building,  it  was  united,  great, 
happy.  But  there  are  epochs  when  it  ceases  to 
build;  these  are  times  of  separation,  discord, 
inner  conflict.  Egypt  is  an  isolated  land,  devel- 
oping largely  within  itself ;  yet  its  civilization  is 
in  general  that  of  the  Asiatic  River  Valley  such 
as  sprang  up  along  the  Euphrates,  the  Ganges, 
the  Indus,  the  Yang-tsi-Kiang.  On  the  other 
hand  European  civilization  is  first  Mediterranean 
(Southern)  and  then  Oceanic  (Northern),  or 
Greco-Latin  and  Teutonic,  and  finally  Catholic 
and  Protestant,  being  all  the  while  in  desperate 
struggle.  America  is  mainly  the  product  of  this 
Oceanic  civilization  of  Europe,  which,  however, 
is  moving  again  into  a  River  Valley,  the  Missis- 
sippi, embracing  almost  a  continent  by  itself. 
Thus  we  behold  an  Occidental  River  Valley 
with  its  civilization  which  has  likewise  begun  to 
express  itself  in  Architecture  vieing  in  colossality 
with  the  Orient. 


64  ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIRST. 

In  considering  the  History  of  Egypt  we  are 
compelled  to  npke  a  distinction  between  the 
pre-hisioric  and  the  proto-historic,  Pre-historic 
Egypt  has  also  been  explored,  but  it  possesses  no 
written  record,  no  language  proper,  though  it  has 
implements,  tombs,  caves,  and  even  signs,  un- 
doubtedly the  products  of  associated  Man.  But 
when  we  reach  proto-historic  Egypt,  we  find  writ- 
ing, the  early  hieroglyphic,  which  is  by  its  very 
nature  monumental.  But  this  stage  of  the 
nation  has  no  definitely  ordered  Time,  no  chronol- 
ogy in  the  historic  sense.  Not  till  the  Greek  got 
into  Egypt  and  wheeled  it  into  line  with  the 
World's  History,  was  the  Valley  of  the  Nile 
strictly  timed,  and  its  events  put  into  the  regu- 
lar sequence  of  the  passing  years.  Thus  Egypt 
becomes  historic,  but  then  it  is  no  longer  old 
Egypt  lying  and  floating  along  in  unlimited 
Time. 

We  have  to  think  that  the  Egyptians  stood 
in  a  closer  intimacy  with  pure  Time  than  any 
other  known  people,  being  determined  by  Time, 
being  swept  on  in  its  stream  without  much  sepa- 
ration from  it  or  mastery  over  it.  The  colossal 
presence  of  Time  in  the  Egyptian  monuments  is 
thatwhich  impresses  us  so  strongly  and  strangely. 
Time  seems  incorporate  in  them,  without  much 
division.  We  on  the  contrary  divide  Time  into 
small  portions,  and  thus  order  it  and  control  it 
to  our  purpose,  so  that  it  hardly  seems  present; 


THE  OniEITTAL   TYPE.  66 

but  in  Egypt  it  lies  about  in  huge  boulders  of 
hundreds  and  of  thousands  of  years,  quite  im- 
possible for  us  to  handle  after  our  fashion.  In 
this  hazy  atmosphere  of  undefined,  unmeasured, 
and  unmeasurable  Time  old  Egypt  swims  en- 
compassed with  her  monumental  Art  which  has 
also  the  ever- transcending  character  of  Time, 
striving  to  get  beyond  itself  by  addition  to  addi- 
tion, accretion  upon  accretion,  till  it  attains  a 
colossality  not  yet  equaled.  The  Egyptian 
strives  to  overtake  Time  itself,  and  thus  to  reach 
immortality. 

VI.  Egyptian  History,  then,  is  proto-historic, 
as  we  term  it ;  this  applies  to  the  real  Egypt  as 
independent,  self-unfolding  from  within  and 
creative .  Historic  Egypt  is  later  and  shows  us 
the  nation  lapsing  from  its  greatness  and  becom- 
ing the  prey  of  foreigners,  the  Persian,  the 
Greek,  the  Roman,  who  struggle  over  the  in- 
heritance. The  Persian  was  an  Oriental  con- 
queror; the  Greek  was  a  European  conqueror 
who  •  became  Oriental  in  the  Ptolomies ;  the 
Roman  reduced  Egypt  and  the  Orient  to  Euro- 
pean sway.  Then  came  the  Mohamedan;  but 
to-day  the  Englishman  seems  to  be  in  possession 
and  is  erecting  a  new  sort  of  works,  also  of  vast 
magnitude ;  but  the  chief  task  is  now  to  elevate 
the  people  subjugated  for  some  2500  years,  and 
to  endow  them  with  a  new  spirit  of  nationality. 
If  this  can   be  done,    the  Valley   of   the   Nile, 


86  ABGHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST, 

physically  as  fertile  as  ever,  may  again  become 
spiritually  creative. 

Our  interest  must  chiefly  lie  in  original,  proto- 
historic  Egypt,  which  had  a  long  existence,  more 
than  3000  years,  or  possibly  more  than  4000. 
It  also  had  its  periods,  its  oscillations,  in  its 
development.  These  periods  we  may  consider 
to  be  three  in  common  with  most  writers  on 
Egypt,  the  old,  the  middle,  and  the  new,  each 
of  which  had  its  rise,  bloom,  and  decline,  em- 
bracing centuries  and  several  dynasties.  But  the 
main  fact  for  us  in  our  present  work  is  that 
each  of  these  periods  developed  its  own  special 
phase  of  Architecture,  which  we  shall  designate 
as  follows :  — 

A.  The  Pyramid^  which  belongs  to  the  Old 
Period  and  whose  highest  development  was 
reached  in  the  Fourth  Dynasty,  and  is  still  to  be 
seen  at  Gizeh. 

B.  The  Column,  which  belongs  to  the  Middle 
Period,  and  whose  bloom  was  attained  in  the 
Twelfth  Dynasty,  the  locality  of  it  being  now 
called  Beni-Hassan.  The  Column  shows  the 
separation  of  the  supporting  principle  from  the 
wall,  and  its  independent  form  and  development. 
Two  leading  kinds  of  Columns  are  found  at  Beni- 
Hassan,  one  of  which  will  be  developed  by 
Egypt,  the  other  by  Greece. 

C.  The  Temple,  which  belongs  to  the  New  Pe- 
riod in  its  complete  Egyptian  shape,  having  the 


THE  OBIENTAL  TYPE.  57 

enclosing  wall,  the  supporting  column  inside,  as 
well  as  the  roof  overhead,  all  differentiated  yet 
united  into  one  structure.  This  Temple  culmi- 
nates in  the  Eighteenth  Dynasty  (best  exempli- 
fied in  Karnak,  which  may  be  regarded  as  a 
Pyramid  with  its  structural  elements  developed 
though  prostrate). 

Such  is,  in  general  outline,  the  architectural 
process  of  Egypt,  the  generic  one  for  all  time  as 
far  as  we  can  now  see.  Yet  each  of  these 
Periods  forming  together  the  one  total  process, 
has  within  itself  also  a  process  of  rise,  culmina- 
tion, decline.  Three  grand  oscillations  we  note 
in  the  history  of  Egypt  as  independent  or  proto- 
historic ;  in  deep  correspondence  with  this  politi- 
cal or  rather  institutional  movement  is  the  move- 
ment of  its  Architecture  whose  chief  function  is 
to  be  the  Home  of  Institutions. 

There  has  always  been  some  question  about 
the  order  of  Egypt's  monuments.  This  nation 
has  been  supposed  to  be  the  absolutely  stable, 
unchanging  and  unchangeable;  its  works  were 
held  to  share  in  this  character.  All  alike  they 
were  thrown  out  along  the  Nile  for  thou- 
sands of  years,  unalterable  as  the  Sphinx  which 
never  moves  a  feature.  Such  a  view  would 
exclude  evolution  from  Egypt,  which,  however, 
has  shown  itself  to  be  a  land  of  inner  develop- 
ment, even  if  this  be  slow,  and  not  visible  in 
yearly  cycles.     So  we  are  to  see  in  our  evolu- 


58  ABGEITEQTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIRST. 

tionary  time  the  land  of  the  Nile  slowly  keeping 
step  with  the  movement  of  the  ages,  being  no 
longer  regarded  as  stationary  by  any  means. 
Especially  we  shall  observe  in  Egypt  an  evolu- 
tion of  Architecture,  which,  if  we  look  simply  at 
the  difference  between  the  shapes  evolved  (for 
instance  between  the  Pyramid  and  Column)  was 
of  vaster  sweep  than  the  architectural  evolution 
of  Europe. 

Moreover,  the  duration  of  Egyptian  Architec- 
ture is  much  longer  than  that  of  European  archi- 
tecture. From  the  Pyramid-builders  to  the 
Ptolomies,  stretches  a  period  of  nearly  4000 
years  —  certain  Egyptologists  say  5000.  But 
if  we  start  in  Europe  with  the  first  Doric  temple 
of  Sicily  (a  little  before  600  B.  C),  we  have  a 
period  of  some  2500  years  extending  down  to 
our  own  time.  Thus  Egypt's  architectural  de- 
velopment may  have  lasted  twice  as  long  as  that 
of  Europe.  We  say  mai/,  recollecting  the  un- 
certainty of  Egyptian  chronology  which  refuses 
to  be  measured  by  the  little  European  measuring- 
rod  of  an  annual  cycle.  At  any  rate  we  must 
break  to  pieces  our  notion  of  a  crystallized 
Egypt,  and  see  in  that  old  world  a  very  decided 
evolutionary  movement. 

We  are  all  Egyptians  still  and  cannot  help 
ourselves ;  the  Nile  is  flowing  through  us  to-day 
and  will  continue  to  flow  forever.  By  many 
channels,  or  rather  through  many  mouths  does 


THE  OBIENTAL  TYPE,  69 

it  empty  itself  into  the  sea  of  the  Future,  far 
vaster  than  the  Mediterranean.  It  pours  into  us 
primarily  through  its  Hebrew  outlet — the  Bible, 
Moses  and  the  Law.  Then  it  reaches  us  by 
means  of  Greek  literature  which  works  old 
Egypt  over  and  over  for  many' hundred  years, 
from  Homer  to  Photius.  Through  Christianity 
it  winds  into  the  secret  recesses  of  our  souls,  for 
Christian  theology  was  thought  out  and  formu- 
lated at  Egyptian  Alexandria.  But  in  our  Nine- 
teenth Century,  truly  the  evolutionary  Century, 
we  have  rushed  back  to  ancient  Egypt  itself, 
dug  it  up,  plundered  remorsely  even  its  tombs 
in  order  to  find  out  its  secret  which  is  also  ours. 
Not  for  money  or  for  idle  curiosity  is  this  thing 
done,  but  really  for  our  salvation.  We  must 
know  ourselves  in  order  to  be  saved,  but  to 
know  ourselves  we  have  to  know  Egypt. 

Accordingly  we  shall  begin  our  study  of  the 
architectural  evolution  of  the  ages  with  the  first 
and  greatest  Egyptian  monument  —  the  Pyramid 
which  in  our  view  stands  at  the  beginning  of 
Architecture  and  starts  it  going.  We  at  least 
are  deeply  impressed  with  the  constructive 
importance  of  the  Pyramid  as  the  primal  foun- 
tain of  all  great  building,  as  the  mighty  archi- 
tectonic mother  whose  progeny  will  be  the 
structural  forms  of  the  future. 


A.  The  Pyramid. 

Architecture  begins  with  the  largest  building 
erected  by  associated  Man.  There  is  no  fact  in 
the  history  of  construction  more  suggestive  and 
indeed  more  startling  than  the  one  just  stated. 
Out  of  the  Pyramid  we  may  conceive  the  stream 
of  Architecture  to  be  flowing,  as  the  Nile  from 
its  sources.  And  this  stream  flows  not  only 
westward  but  eastward,  through  the  Orient  as 
well  as  through  Europe.  Over  and  over  again 
in  the  course  of  our  studies  we  shall  have  to 
come  back  to  the  thought :  Architecture  begins 
with  the  largest  building  erected  by  associated 
Man. 

This  building  is,  then,  the  oldest,  truly  the 
first  in  more  senses  than  one,  being  the  edifice 
placed  at  the  starting-point  of  civilization  in  time, 
place,  and  development.  Looked  at  in  regard  to 
architectural  evolution,  the  Egyptian  Pyramid  is 
the  most  important,  the  most  significant  struc- 
ture that  was  ever  reared.  With  all  its  bareness, 
its  utter  abstractness,  it  has  a  fascination  peculiar 
in  kind,  and  greater  than  any  other  building, 
when  it  has  once  taken  possession  of  us,  and  we 
begin  to  unfold  what  lies  implicitly  in  it  for  the 
future.  What  is  the  ground  of  its  charm?  It 
is  the  potential  building  of  our  earth,  containing 
and  remotely  suggesting  all  the  coming  realiza- 
(60) 


TEE  PTBAMID.  61 

tion  of  Architecture,  when  we  fleetingly  glimpse 
its  incipient  possibilities. 

Hence  we  may  understand  that  every  age  will 
have  and  ought  to  have  its  own  interpretation  of 
the  Pyramid,  which  must  be  looked  back  at  and 
seen  in  the  light  of  the  latest  developed  construc- 
tion. Just  now  the  American  High  Building  is 
the  most  recent  commentary  upon  that  ancient 
Egyptian  prophecy  in  stone,  its  most  recent  and 
probably  its  most  striking  fulfillment.  More 
than  any  intervening  edifice  of  Europe,  does  this 
newest  edifice  of  the  ages  reach  back  and  join 
hands  with  the  oldest,  in  a  marvelofls  recognition- 
of  kinship.  We  shall  therefore  try  to  get  what 
we  can  out  of  the  Pyramid,  well  knowing  that  it 
is  a  hieroglyphic,  the  most  colossal  Egyptian 
hieroglyphic,  which  no  Champollion  is  going  to 
unriddle  at  a  breath,  but  whose  full  meaning  can 
only  be  unrolled  in  the  lapse  of  Time  itself. 
Such  is  the  primordial  germ  out  of  which  the 
succeeding  forms  of  Architecture  are  to  flower 
forth  in  the  lasting  lines  of  granite   and  marble. 

The  meaning  of  the  word  Pyramid  is  some- 
what uncertain.  There  have  been  attempts  to 
find  an  Egyptian  word  for  it,  but  without  suc- 
cess, say  most  of  the  Egyptologists.  It  is  prob- 
ably a  Greek  word  meaning  fire  or  rather  the 
funeral  pyre  (pyra)  which,  built  in  the  form  of 
a  square  at  the  base,  would  become  something 
like  a  blazing  pyramid,  when  aflame.    Certainly  in 


62  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIRST. 

the  Greek  mind  pyramid  was  connected  with 
pyre,  which  was  also  a  receptacle  for  the  dead 
body,  though  the  one  consumed  it  and  the  other 
preserved  it.  Indeed  we  may  see  a  difference 
between  the  Greek  and  Egyptian  conceptions  in 
the  fact  that  the  one  took  a  pyramid  of  stone 
and  the  other  a  pyramid  of  fire  for  the  lifeless 
man. 

I.  The  Pyramids  have  their  district,  which  is 
confined  to  the  western  side  of  the  Nile,  several 
miles  from  its  banks,  along  the  border  of  the 
Libyan  desert,  whose  sands  often  encroach  upon 
these  monuments.  They  lie  in  an  irregular  line 
from  the  village  Medum  in  the  South  to  Abu 
Koasch  in  the  North  opposite  to  Cairo.  This 
line  is  somewhat  over  forty  miles  long  and  runs 
through  the  necropolis  of  the  old  capital  of  Egypt, 
Memphis,  which  lay  on  the  left  bank  of  the  river 
a  few  miles  above  Cairo,  and  was  flanked  on  both 
sides  by  Pyramids  rising  up  along  the  sands  of 
the  desert.  As  the  inhabitants  of  Memphis 
looked  to  the  West  with  its  setting-sun,  they 
beheld  that  sky-line  of  Pyramids,  which  seemed 
a  sort  of  barrier  against  the  lifelessness,  the 
bare  negation  and  nothingness  of  Sahara.  In 
the  other  direction  was  the  life  given  by  the 
River  with  its  fresh  annual  deposit  of  fertile  soil 
brought  down  from  unknown  sources.  An  in- 
cessant conflict  seemed  to  be  waged  between  the 
Nile  and  the  Desert  in  the  middle  of  which  the 


THE  PTBAMW.  63 

old  Egyptian  was  placed,  the  Destroyer  on  one 
side  and  the  Preserver  on  the  other.  Well  may 
he  have  become  the  most  religious  of  mortals,  as 
so  many  ancient  observers  have  declared,  be- 
holding at  his  very  door  the  two  Gods  of  the 
Universe,  the  positive  and  the  negative,  in  a  con- 
tinuous battle  for  his  possession. 

The  number  of  the  Pyramids  is  put  at  about 
one  hundred  since  the  discoveries  of  Lepsius  and 
others.  They  are  of  many  sizes  and  shapes,  and 
also  in  different  states  of  preservation.  The 
largest,  the  Great  Pyramid  of  Cheops,  is  now 
estimated  by  good  authority  to  be  484  feet  high, 
though  its  height  seems  to  have  somewhat  varied 
in  the  past  and  is  differently  reported.  At  its 
base  are  some  small  Pyramids  rising  to  fifty  and 
seventy  feet.  Not  far  off  is  the  Sphinx  which 
has  become  the  type  of  the  Egyptian  riddle, 
though  named  by  the  hieroglyphics  '*  the  watch- 
man," or  the  sentinel  standing  guard  over  the 
dead. 

II.  We  must  conceive  the  Pyramid  to  be  an 
Enclosure  made  by  man  and  not  by  nature, 
otherwise  we  can  hardly  call  it  architectural. 
When  the  temple  or  tomb  is  hewn  out  of  the 
solid  rock,  the  wall  is  not  yet  born,  not  yet  sep- 
arated from  its  primeval  mother  earth.  The 
birth  of  the  man-made  wall  as  an  Enclosure  or 
home  of  the  God  is  properly  the  birth  of  Archi- 
tecture.    As  long  as  this  Enclosure  is  a  grot  or 


64  ARCHITECTURE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST. 

cave,  or  an  excavation,  nature  furnishes  the 
jnain  element  of  the  building.  Not  till  she  is 
released  of  her  task  by  man,  is  there  any  com- 
plete construction.  When  the  Enclosure  defi- 
nitely separates  from  mother  earth,  and  is  built 
for  itself  and  in  its  own  right,  having  severed  the 
umbilical  cord  and  standing  forth  in  the  world 
fully  individualized,  then  Architecture  has  ap- 
peared and  can  start  on  its  career.  Before  this 
event  the  structural  forms  belong  to  Archaeology. 

Now  the  Pyramid  of  Egypt  is  the  Enclosure 
freeing  itself  of  its  oneness  with  the  earth  and 
asserting  its  own  distinctive  shape  and  individu- 
ality. When  this  transition  took  place  cannot 
of  course  be  told  with  any  definiteness;  but  the 
scene  of  it  was  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  far  back  in 
time.  Its  banks  are  lined  with  rock-tombs ;  we 
may  conceive  one  of  them  slowly  emerging  from 
the  earth  and  bringing  its  wall  along  through 
the  instrumentality  of  man,  and  finally  placing 
itself  upon  its  own  chosen  foundation.  With 
such  an  act  man  also  begins  to  separate  himself 
from  the  trammels  of  nature  and  to  start  toward 
his  goal,  freedom.  The  self-conscious  Ego 
dawned  in  Egypt,  and  began  to  build  the  Pyra- 
mid. Not  till  man  had  separated  himself  frona 
nature,  could  he  separate  anything  else  from  it, 
and  begin  to  build  a  real  edifice  for  the  habita- 
tion of  his  new-born  Self. 

The   Enclosure  of  the  Pyramid  is  the  primal 


THE  PYRAMID.  65 

reproduction  of  nature's  wall  by  man,  hence  its 
solidity,  its  massiveness,  its  truly  terrestrial  thick- 
ness. The  space  enclosed  in  the  Pyramid  is 
indeed  small,  seemingly  the  smallest  possible. 
The  mountain  is  taken  apart  by  human  hands 
and  put  together  again  into  a  new  mountain 
which,  however,  is  the  wall  of  Architecture, 
wholly  separate  from  nature  though  sharing  her 
colossal  proportions.  The  Pyramid,  accord- 
ingly, shows  the  winning  of  the  wall  as  the 
Enclosure  of  space,  in  rivalry  with  the  mighty 
agencies  of  the  physical  world.  Architecture 
makes  now  its  own  environing  element,  which  is 
indeed  its  first  condition.  Man  too  reveals  him- 
self, his  will  coping  with  the  powers  of  nature 
and  turning  them  to  his  purpose.  The  Pyramid, 
therefore,  is  the  primal  architectural  wall,  it  is 
all  wall,  or  the  wall  as  universal,  creative,  out  of 
which  we  are  to  see  other  forms  of  Architecture 
evolving  themselves. 

III.  The  greatness  of  the  Pyramids  impresses 
us  with  another  fact :  they  are  the  product  of 
associated  Man.  We  see  at  once  that  it  has  re- 
quired a  gigantic  act  of  co-operation  to  build 
such  a  work,  which  thus  becomes  a  most  strik- 
ing image  of  socialized  humanity.  The  Egyptian 
saw  his  whole  people  in  the  Pyramid,  saw  them 
at  work.  The  weakness  of  the  man  taken  singly, 
the  mightiness  of  associated  Man  we  to-day  feel 
in  these  monuments  as  in  none  other.     The  in- 

5 


66  ABGHITECTUBE  —  GHAPTEB  FIESt. 

dividual  in  their  presence  is  simply  overwhelmed, 
yet  they  were  built  by  individuals  in  association. 
An  abasement  on  the  one  hand  and  an  exaltation 
on  the  other  creep  into  the  soul  of  the  beholder, 
perchance  in  spite  of  himself.  They  humiliate 
into  the  dust  the  individual  man,  but  they  raise 
aloft  the  institutional  Man.  Such  is  the  very 
character  of  Egypt  petrified  in  these  works  of 
hers ;  for  in  the  Pyramid  the  Egyptian  primarily 
builds  himself  building  the  Pyramid  by  vast 
combination,  by  a  consolidation  of  the  whole 
people  into  one  long  persistent  deed  of  construc- 
tion. We  cannot  avoid  the  conclusion  that  it 
was  the  national  will  which  built  the  Pyramid 
and  thus  expressed  itself  architecturally.  Here, 
was  indeed  the  tomb  of  the  king,  of  the  one 
will  in  which  all  others  were  concentrated,  and 
which  controlled  these  associated  wills  whose 
first  duty  was  to  construct  an  image  or  a  symbol 
of  their  united  nation.  The  Egyptian  people 
looking  on  the  Pyramid  beheld  their  common 
Self,  and  through  it  became  self-conscious  as  a 
nation;  many  wills  manifest  themselves  as  one 
will  in  a  single  gigantic  work,  which  pictures  to 
all  coming  generations  the  fact  of  national  unity. 
The  Pyramid  is  indeed  a  tomb,  but  why  such  a 
tomb?  There  is  something  in  this  tomb  beyond 
the  tomb,  something  which  impelled  a  whole 
people  to  build  it  for  their  ruler  so  that  it  would 
be  eternal.    The  very  simplicity  of  the  Pyramid, 


The  pyramid.  67 

the  nakedness  of  it  brings  out  the  vastness  of 
the  associated  strength  by  which  it  was  con- 
structed. It  is  the  total  Egyptian  nation  as  a 
nude  athlete  rising  up  in  the  valley  of  the  Nile 
and  facing  the  destructive  might  of  the  Libyan 
sands  or  indeed  of  Death  itself  in  a  kind  of 
battle  array. 

From  this  point  of  view  as  well  as  from  others, 
the  Pyramid  may  be  considered  to  be  the  opening 
school  of  Architectdre  as  the  truly  architectonic 
Art.  For  this  Art  has  as  its  fundamental  func- 
tion to  build  the  home  of  associated  Man,  the 
dwelling  place  of  Will  not  as  individual  but  as 
universal.  The  Pyramid  shows  Man  imitating 
the  cosmical  Architect,  rivaling  the  Maker  of 
Nature  in  employing  Nature's  colossality.  But  it 
also  shows  the  Egyptian  people  expressing  in  stone 
their  deepest  conviction,  and  building  their  whole 
social  and  institutional  world  in  enduring  monu- 
ments, thereby  revealing  themselves  supremely 
as  a  nation  of  builders,  on  the  whole  greatest  that 
our  globe  has  yet  seen.  The  fact  is  they  could 
not  keep  from  building.  The  God  gave  them 
food,  and  then  set  them  to  work  to  earn  his 
bounty.  This  free  food  of  the  Nile  was  not  so 
free  after  all.  The  immeasurable  ruins  in  Egypt 
to-day  speak  of  labor,  labor,  pure  labor  of  a 
whole  people  for  thousands  of  years.  And  it  is 
largely  labor  for  constructing  the  dwelling-place 


68         ABOniTECTUnE  —  CHAPTER  FIBST. 

of  the  God,  of  putting  Him  into  an  Enclosure,  of 
making  the  Infinite  finite,  the  Unknown  known. 

In  this  connection  we  may  regard  the  Pyramids 
as  the  great  trainers  of  man  to  work.  We  can- 
not help  thinking  that  those  early  Egyptian 
kings  understood  their  problem.  The  primitive 
man  on  the  whole  does  not  like  to  work,  the 
savage  is  notoriously  proud  and  lazy,  he  is  the 
original  gentleman  who  regards  work  as  unbe- 
coming to  his  dignity.  Then  with  that  free 
food  furnished  by  Father  Nile,  what  a  good 
time  the  early  man  would  have  for  luxuriating  in 
idleness  and  savagery  I  But  those  hoary  rulers  of 
Egypt,  evidently  men  of  iron  will,  took  hold  of 
the  idler  with  no  gentle  hand  and  set  him  to 
work.  The  supposition  is  hot  improbable  that 
the  human  race  became  trained  to  industry  in 
the  Nile  Valley,  and  has  kept  at  w^ork  ever  since. 
For  these  vast  structures  often  have  no  conceiv- 
able purpose,  they  seem  to  mean  industry  for 
industry's  sake,  and  to  show  man  laboring 
terribly  to  learn  to  labor.  A  great  educator  of 
primitive  civilization  to  its  task  one  may  well 
behold  in  the  Pyramid. 

Again  let  us  emphasize  that  the  Pyramid  is  a 
great  trainer  to  associated  effort.  To  build  it 
requires  calculation,  forethought,  incredible 
patience;  it  is  a  monument  to  the  long-enduring 
toil  of  many  men  co-operating.  Not  a  herd  of 
animals  or  a  colony  of  beavers  do  the  workers 


THE  PYBAMID.  69 

here  show  themselves;  they  are  a  society  of  self- 
conscious  human  beings  who  build  a  mighty 
image  of  their  association  and  thus  behold  them- 
selves as  a  social  unit,  as  a  people.  The  early 
Egyptians  build  their  consciousness  of  nationality 
into  a  Pyramid,  without  which  they  never  would 
have  known  themselves.  Long  indeed  is  the  pro- 
cess, more  than  a  thousand  years  probably.  And 
to-day  we  seek  to  throw  ourselves  back  into  that 
old  consciousness  which  still  lurks  in  us,  but 
is  covered  up  with  the  civilization  of  the  many 
intervening  centuries.  We  strive  to  become 
again  an  ancient  Egyptian  for  the  nonce  and  to 
build  a  Pyramid  ourselves. 

It  is  a  part  of  the  appreciation  of  the  Pyramid 
to  study  the  various  impressions  which  they  have 
made  upon  foreigners  who  have  visited  them. 
Especially  the  architects  of  the  different  succeed- 
ing nations  are  to  be  heard  when  they  speak. 
But  their  speech  is  properly  their  Art,  and  we 
shall  find  many  a  connecting  link  between  the 
Pyramid  and  later  architectural  forms.  It  is 
our  opinion  that  the  early  Greek  architects  visited 
Egypt  to  see  its  monuments,  as  the  early  Greek 
philosophers  went  thither  to  study  its  lore. 

Observers  state  that  the  Pyramids  at  a  dis- 
tance seem  to  be  mountains,  and  give  an  impres- 
sion similar  to  these  lofty  objects  of  nature.  But 
when  they  are  approached  and  are  seen  near 
at  hand,  the  effect  changes.     The  mind  becomes 


70  ABC  HITEC  TUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIB  ST. 

aware  that  they  are  the  works  of  man,  that  is  of 
associated  Man.  There  follows  a  feeling  of  be- 
ing overwhelmed,  of  stupefaction.  A  single 
immense  block  is  inspected,  and  then  the  whole; 
both  have  the  tendency  to  strain  the  vision,  and 
also  the  imagination  toward  the  invisible  and  the 
unimaginable;  the  mind  sinks  unable  to  grasp 
the  labor,  the  means,  the  mass  inside,  the  lapse 
of  time  since  their  construction.  Thus  individ- 
uality seems  at  first  crushed,  ground  to  very  dust 
by  the  oppressive  edifice.  Then  the  thought 
rises :  all  this  is  the  work  of  individuals  associ- 
ated. Whereat  comes  relief,  and  the  observer 
begins  to  see  the  positive  element  in  the  Pyra- 
paid,  to  go  back  and  build  it  over  in  his  own 
soul. 

We  mistake  if  we  think  the  Pyramid  was 
merely  a  tomb  in  our  sense  of  the  word.  The 
whole  people  built  it  as  a  manifestation  and  also 
as  a  means  of  their  unity ;  it  showed  to  them 
their  one  concentrated  Will  as  a  nation.  We 
may  well  believe  that  the  Pyramid  revealed 
Egypt  to  the  Egyptians.  It  was  not  connected 
with  the  future  state  merely,  but  with  the  pres- 
ent; it  was  not  simply  a  monument  of  death 
but  also  of  life  and  activity.  The  king,  un- 
doubtedly in  accord  with  the  consciousness  of 
his  people,  spent  his  life  in  building  it;  his  suc- 
cessor would  then  erect  another ;  thus  there  was 
a  living  reproduction  of  the  national  unity  and 


THE  PYBAMID.  71 

perchance  development  in  these  monuments  from 
reign  to  reign  and  from  dynasty  to  dynasty. 
The  one  Will  of  the  Nation  represented  by  the 
monarch,  also  one  Will,  kept  itself  active  in  con- 
structing the  Pyramid,  which  was  doubtless  in 
that  age  the  means  of  unifying  Egypt. 

ly.  So  we  emphasize  as  strongly  as  we  can  that 
the  Pyramid  was  not  the  work  of  a  capricious 
tyrant  commanding  a  vast  mass  of  slaves  to  labor 
for  the  gratification  of  his  ambition  or  vanity. 
On  the  contrary  the  Pyramid  was  a  great  national 
act,  and  also  profoundly  religious,  its  construc- 
tion being  demanded  and  participated  in  by  the 
whole  people.  No  mere  tyrant  could  have  built 
it  without  the  strong  concurrence  of  the  popular 
will  backing  him  and  urging  him  forward.  No 
slaves  could  have  done  this  work,  though  slaves 
undoubtedly  were  employed  in  the  purely  me- 
chanical labor.  As  a  whole  it  is  not  a  servile 
product,  it  speaks  as  a  performance  of  the  spirit 
overflowing  with  its  own  self-expression. 
Pictured  on  some  walls  we  may  see  slaves  lifting 
and  pulling  the  stone  into  position  under  the 
direction  of  the  taskmaster,  and  then  polishing 
the  surface  of  the  monument.  But  the  real  work- 
men were  the  people  who  for  their  own  salvation 
were  building  this  edifice,  in  the  fulfillment  of 
their  national  destiny. 

To  build  was  to  worship  in  the  age  of  the 
Pyramids.     The   service    of   the    God    required 


72  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  GHAFTEli  FIRST. 

construction,  and  that  too  construction  for  eter- 
nity. There  was  a  ritual  indeed,  with  prayer 
and  sacrifice ;  but  the  true  prayer,  the  heartfelt 
sacrifice  was  the  laying  of  one  of  these  enormous 
masses  of  stone.  Without  such  an  act  of  wor- 
ship they  never  could  have  been  laid,  at  least  not 
so  many  of  them  and  for  so  long  a  time.  Here 
before  us  is  the  actual  prayer-book  of  the 
Egyptian  which  he  read  at  a  glance  doubtless 
often  during  the  day  and  felt  the  response  in  his 
soul.  If  we  would  understand  him,  we  too  must 
decipher  this  prodigious  hieroglyphic,  and  read 
it  after  him  in  his  sense,  and  as  far  as  possible 
with  his  feeling.  As  he  looked  up  at  the  Pyra- 
mids he  heard  their  prayers  of  stone,  petrified 
petitions  to  the  Gods  during  thousands  of  years. 
That  was  his  way  and  so  he  built  and  kept 
building  these  pyramidal  supplications  for  untold 
ages.  One  such  structure,  even  the  largest,  was, 
not  enough,  for  the  act  of  praying  cannot  end 
but  repeats  itself  again  and  again  in  many  Pyra- 
mids great  and  small  streaming  down  Time. 
Thus  it  comes  that  they  are  of  many  sizes  and  of 
many  periods.  Each  generation  with  its  ruler 
must  do  its  own  praying,  that  is,  must  build  its 
own  special  Pyramid,  for  in  Egyptian  this  is  the 
true  speech  of  supplication. 

It  cannot  therefore  surprise  us  that  the  archi- 
tect was  held  in  such  high  esteem  by  the  people 
of  the  Nile.     A  saying  of  theirs  has  come  down 


THE  PYBAMID.  73 

that  the  builder  was  more  than  the  king.  He 
was  the  leader  in  prayer,  the  national  leader  whom 
the  king  followed.  To  build  is  not  simply  to 
make  a  tomb  or  even  a  temple ;  it  is  the  imme- 
diate communion  with  the  God  on  the  part  of  all 
who  were  placing  a  single  stone  into  the  wall. 
King  and  people  united  in  building  the  Pyramid 
through  the  architect  as  in  the  grand  act  of  wor- 
ship. We  cannot  help  thinking  that  the  humble 
workman  patiently  chiseling  in  the  granite  quar- 
ries of  Syene  many  hundreds  of  miles  distant 
the  slabs  for  these  monuments  had  also  his 
divine  satisfaction  in  the  task.  He  was  also  a 
builder,  and  in  his  small  way  he  was  re-enacting 
the  part  of  the  God  (Ptah,  the  builder),  whose 
grand  divine  act  was  the  building  of  the  cosmos. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  cathedrals  of  the 
Middle  Ages  were  constructed  with  a  similar  de- 
votion on  the  part  of  the  people  who  saw  in 
them  a  great  work  of  their  associated  commu- 
nity. Many  years  the  task  of  building  them 
lasted,  even  centuries;  some  of  them  are  not 
finished  yet,  as  there  are  also  unfinished 
Pyramids.  In  both  the  Pyramid  and  the  Ca- 
thedral we  see  associated  Man  erectingr  the 
home  or  dwelling-place  of  what  makes  him 
associated  Man —  of  the  God  who  must 
also  have  his  house,  which  is  the  house 
of  all  houses  in  that  community.  The  great 
universal  Self  who   indwells  and  unites  all   the 


74         ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIBST. 

small  individual  Selves,  is  to  have  His  Home 
in  the  center  of  these  atomic  individuals,  asso- 
ciating them  primordially  and  making  them  cre- 
ative of  all  association  and  its  architecture. 

Hence  it  conies  that  the  primal  structure 
which  the  people  build  architecturally  is  the 
abode  of  their  God,  or  of  their  reli odious  In- 
stitution.  Associated  Man  erects  his  first  great 
Home  for  that  Will  which  associates  him,  unifies 
him  into  a  nation,  making  him  an  Egyptian,  a 
Greek,  a  Koman.  From  this  original  Home  of 
the  God  or  of  the  religious  Institution,  he  will 
proceed  to  build  the  home  of  other  Institutions, 
the  secular.  Thus  the  abode  of  the  God  or  of 
the  religious  Institution  is  the  creative  source, 
the  genetic  archetype  of  all  other  institutional 
abodes,  that  is,  of  all  Architecture. 

Associated  Man  in  his  Egyptian  stage  builds 
the  Pyramid  as  the  eternal  Home  of  that  Will, 
Spirit,  Ego  which  makes  him  associated  Man,  a 
social  Whole.  King  Cheops,  the  Pyramid-builder, 
was  such  a  Will,  socializing  and  unifying  the 
people  of  the  Nile  Valley  in  a  great  enterprise, 
and  so  was  for  them  divine,  was  one  with  the 
God  who  makes  man  associative  and  a  builder  of 
institutions  and  their  edifices.  The  Great  Pyra- 
mid was  indeed  the  tomb  of  King  Cheops,  but 
that  peculiar  kind  of  tomb  which  was  to  preserve 
undying  the  Spirit  or  Ego  which  united  all  the 
people   in   making  it,  so   that   every   Egyptian 


THE  PYRAMID.  75 

would  feel,  as  he  looked  up  at  it  in  passing,  his 
oneness  with  his  nation,  would  thrill  at  the  con- 
sciousness of  his  Egyptian  selfhood,  which  has 
revealed  itself  in  such  overpowering  grandeur. 

V.  Almost  universally  the  opinion  has  been 
held  that  the  Pyramids  were  built  by  tyrants  with 
autocratic  power  grinding  the  people  to  the  last 
degree  of  endurance.  How  did  such  a  view 
start?  We  can  trace  it  back  to  the  old  Greeks 
looking  at  these  monuments  and  trying  to  dis- 
cover their  purpose.  Herodotus  about  450  B.C., 
visited  Egypt  and  has  handed  down  the  first 
account.  He  declares  that  Cheops  who  built  the 
great  Pyramid  closed  the  temples,  prohibited 
sacrifices,  and  oppressed  the  whole  nation  by  his 
exaction  of  compulsory  labor.  On  the  other 
hand  inscriptions  in  hieroglyphics  on  the  monu- 
ments have  been  deciphered  which  indicate  that 
Cheops  was  a  pious  man,  performing  all  his 
duties  to  the  Gods,  of  which  this  construction  of 
the  Great  Pyramid  was  an  instance.  The  latter 
is  not  only  the  more  correct  and  rational  view, 
but  is  now  the  established  fact. 

The  former  was  really  a  Greek  interpretation 
of  these  mighty  structures,  and  that  too  an  in- 
terpretation belonging  to  a  certain  age  of  Greece. 
Herodotus,  for  instance,  had  in  mind  the  Ori- 
ental despot  of  whom  he  has  given  such  a  strik- 
ing picture  in  Xerxes.  And  the  Greek  of  the 
middle  of  the  fifth  century  B.  C.  had  just  wit- 


76         ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIRST. 

nessed  the  struggle  of  his  race  vindicating  the 
idea  of  freedom  against  Persia  and  the  whole 
Orient  with  its  absolutism.  Accordingly  he 
reads  into  the  Pyramid  his  own  immediate  ex- 
perience; such  a  vast  work  could  not  be  con- 
structed except  by  an  enslaved  people  like  the 
Orientals  scourged  to  their  toil  by  a  master,  as 
Xerxes  whipped  his  slaves  to  their  work  in  build- 
ing his  bridge  of  boats  over  the  Hellespont. 

The  second  great  Pyramid  was  built  by  Che- 
phren,  the  successor  and  brother  of  Cheops.  The 
two  reigns  lasted  for  106  years,  during  which  the 
Egyptians  *'  suffered  all  kinds  of  oppression  and 
the  temples  remained  constantly  closed."  Here 
is  hinted  in  a  far-off  manner  the  difference 
between  the  Pyramid-builder  and  the  Temple- 
builder,  which  we  shall  find  to  be  an  important 
fact  in  the  history  of  Egyptian  Architecture,  and 
doubtless  in  the  development  of  the  Egyptian 
Eeligion.  The  old  Greek  historian  continues: 
"  Through  hate  of  these  two  kings,  the  people 
would  not  even  mention  their  names,  and  so  they 
called  the  Pyramids  after  a  shepherd,  Philitis, 
who  then  pastured  his  flocks  in  that  region." 
Here  again  lies  a  remote  historical  kernel ;  the 
Pyramid-builder  evidently  had  become  identified 
with  the  abhorred  shepherd-kings  in  the  popular 
mind,  though  the  former  lived  probably  a  thou- 
sand years  before  the  time  of  the  latter. 

The    third  Pyramid   of  the    present    locality 


THIS  PYRAMID.  77 

(Gizeh)  was  much  smaller  ^han  the  other  two 
and  was  built  by  Mycerinus,  son  of  Cheops,  who 
was  wholly  unlike  his  father  and  uncle,  for  he 
took  no  pleasure  in  cruelty,  and  sought  to 
become  the  benefactor  of  his  subjects.  "  He 
opened  the  temples,  and  allowed  the  distressed 
people  to  return  to  their  occupations  and  to  the 
worship  of  the  Gods."  Evidently  here  the  in- 
terpretation runs :  the  greater  the  Pyramid  the 
greater  the  tyrant;  the  modest  Pyramid  indi- 
cates the  good  character.  The  criterion  is  Greek 
moderation ;  the  colossal  is  oppressive  and  means 
the  oppressor. 

Another  Greek  reporter  long  after  Herodotus 
makes  the  following  addition:  "  The  two  kings 
who  built  these  large  Pyramids  are  not  buried  in 
them.  For  they  were  so  hated  on  account  of 
this  laborious  work,  as  well  as  by  their  cruelties 
and  oppressions  that  the  people  threatened  to 
drag  their  bodies  from  their  tombs  and  to  tear 
them  to  pieces"  (Diodorus  Siculus).  Such  is 
the  Greek  with  his  idea  of  freedom  construing 
the  Pyramids  as  monuments  of  Oriental  despot- 
ism. Not  altogether  wrong,  nor  wholly  right  is 
the  view,  say  we  to-day,  giving  our  interpreta- 
tion to  these  same  phenomena. 

It  seems  a  good  while  to  us  since  Herodotus 
wrote,  more  than  two  thousand  years  ago.  But 
between  Herodotus  and  the  Pyramid-builders  lay 
a  longer  period,  fully  three  thousand  years  ac- 


78         AUCHITE  CTURE  —  CHAP  TEE  FIRST. 

cording  to  Egyptologists  of  authority.  Between 
the  Father  of  History  and  our  own  age  the 
recorded  development  of  civilization  has  taken 
place ;  in  fact  he  may  be  deemed  the  first  ade- 
quate recorder  of  it  himself.  Very  surprising 
seems  the  fact  that  from  Herodotus  back  to  the 
Pyramids  lie  a  thousand  years  more  than  from 
him  down  to  the  present  age.  In  Egypt  Time 
seems  not  under  control,  somewhat  chaotic  and 
gigantic.  It  was  the  Greek  mind  that  first 
ordered  Time  and  gave  to  the  world  chronology 
(the  science  of  Time).  Herodotus  has  this 
ordering  of  Time  when  he  deals  with  Greek 
affairs,  but  in  Egypt  he  is  quite  at  sea.  He  was 
dazed,  as  we  still  are,  at  the  mass  of  Time  pre- 
cipitated into  the  annals  of  that  country,  a  mass 
vast  as  the  Pyramids,  centuries  piled  upon  cen- 
turies, so  that  the  mind  is  overwhelmed  with 
Egypt's  Time.  How  the  Egyptologists  have 
struggled  to  put  it  into  order  and  are  still 
struggling ! 

Abdellatif ,  an  Arabian  poet  of  Bagdad  (born 
in  1161)  has  famously  exclaimed  :  '*  Everything 
fears  Time,  but  Time  fears  the  Pyramids." 
Thus  he  represents  a  kind  of  elemental  war  as 
existing  between  Time  and  the  Pyramids,  with  an 
outlook  of  victory  for  the  latter.  It  is  true  that  the 
Pyramids  seem  to  be  endowed  with  the  power  of 
meeting  and  overcoming  the  destructive  power 
of  Time ;  that  is  a  part  of  their  mighty  impres- 


THE  PYRAMID.  79 

sion.  The  Destroyer  beats  his  wings  against 
their  slanting  sides  in  vain,  he  glides  off  into  the 
burning  sands  of  the  Libyan  desert,  thrust  back 
as  it  were  into  his  own  Inferno.  Such  we  may 
call  the  imaginative  Arabian  or  Semitic  inter- 
pretation in  contrast  with  the  Greek,  who  saw 
these  monuments  from  his  political  point  of 
view,  which  has  indeed  been  adopted  by  the 
European.  Abdellatif  as  Oriental  did  not  think 
of  the  government  which  lies  behind  such  works, 
but  that  is  what  the  mind  of  Europe  is  sure  to 
select  and  to  condemn,  by  way  of  contrast  to 
itself. 

Egypt's  Time  comes  floating  down  to  us  in 
enormous  boulders  of  ages,  of  centuries,  of 
thousands  of  years .  It  is  not  nicely  divided  up 
into  neat  little  annual  blocks  easy  to  handle,  and 
all  joined  together  in  succession.  We  indeed 
see  a  certain  stratification  of  events  as  in  Geol- 
ogy ;  we  can  mark  a  cycle  of  rise,  culmination 
and  decline,  in  fact  several  such  cycles.  The 
Pyramids  appear  to  show  such  a  cycle,  lasting  a 
thousand  years  more  or  less.  Not  till  the  period 
of  Psammetichus,  and  still  more,  that  of 
Amasis,  does  Egypt  begin  to  be  chronologized 
through  the  Greek,  and  brought  into  line  with 
the  World's  History.  But  those  antique  masses 
of  Time  in  old  Egypt  must  be  taken  as  they  are 
in  themselves,  hardly  can  they  be  forced  into  an 
alien  chronological  order  (which  is  the  habit  of 


80         ABCHITECTURE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST. 

the  European)  ;  thus  in  fact  they  lose  part  of 
their  meaning. 

yi.  The  Western  mind,  particularly  the 
Anglo-Saxon,  seeks  to  apply  its  great  category, 
utility,  to  the  Pyramid.  The  result  is  a  very 
considerable  number  of  theories  which  try  to 
answer  that  ever-pressing  question:  cui  bono? 
But  just  such  a  question  is  an  evidence  of  the 
vast  difference  between  then  and  now,  them  and 
us,  or  between  the  Egyptian  consciousness  and  our 
own.  The  Pyramid  is  the  naked  support  of 
itself;  it  has  nothing  to  uphold  except  its  own 
enormous  mass.  It  is  roof,  column,  wall  in  one, 
these  being  not  yet  differentiated.  It  is  almost 
pure  wall,  very  little  is  the  room  inside,  though 
there  is  a  little.  A  royal  tomb,  yes;  but  why 
such  a  tomb,  when  in  Egypt  there  are  many 
other  kinds,  and  seemingly  far  better  adapted  to 
their  purpose?  So  our  minds  are  driven  to  look 
behind  this  use  for  some  deeper  or  more  ade- 
quate use. 

It  has  been  suggested  that  they  had  an  astro- 
nomical purpose,  specially  for  the  observation  of 
the  stars.  Why  then  two  such  large  observa- 
tories in  one  locality?  They  have  also  been 
regarded  as  bulwarks,  to  keep  back  the  sands  of 
the  Libyan  desert.  But  here  again  their  useful- 
ness utterly  goes  to  pieces,  they  do  not  perform 
their  task  at  all.     The  outcome  of  all  such  theo- 


THE  PYRAMID.  81 

ries  may  be  summed  up  in  this  statement:  the 
utility  of  the  Pyramids  is  altogether  useless. 

The  fact  is  they  are  ideal  purely,  they  stand 
there  representing  an  idea  in  the  strongest  con- 
trast with  any  notion  of  utility.  Even  if  this, 
idea  be  so  naked,  so  abstract,  so  devoid  of  all 
content  that  it  can  hardly  be  uttered,  still  it  is 
present  in  form,  just  in  this  bare  form  of  the 
Pyramid.  Here  lies  the  chief  difficulty,  the 
grand  riddle.  The  mind  (and  this  is  our  own) 
which  asks  these  monuments :  Of  what  use  are 
ye?  can  hear  no  answer  because  it  is  incapable, 
having  not  the  organ.  Any  purpose  ascribed 
or  ascribable  to  them  dissolves  into  thin  air  on 
the  spot,  as  trivial  or  indeed  contradictory.  They 
rise  up  in  their  own  right,  not  a  means  to  any 
conceivable  end,  except  just  themselves.  The 
Pyramid  is  built  for  its  own  sake  by  Egypt,  the 
end  is  the  building  of  it.  Man  beholds  himself 
in  it  as  the  builder  and  nothing  else,  the  pure 
image  of  constructive  power  which  begins  Archi- 
tecture in  the  great  sense.  The  idealism  of  the 
Pyramid,  though  so  abstract  that  it  contains 
nothing  else,  we  may  well  deem  the  distinct 
starting-point  of  Art  itself,  which  will  never  lose 
this  ideal  trait. 

Undoubtedly  it  is  the  Egyptian  mind,  the  Nile 
mind  which  is  building  its  own  spiritual  sem- 
blance in  the  Pyramid.  From  Beyond  to  the 
Here  flows  the  Nile,  from  the  Unknown  to  the 

6 


82         ARCEITEOTUBE  —  CHAPTEE  FIBST. 

Known,  bringing  the  other  world  into  this  world. 
The  point  of  the  Pyramid  seems  to  pierce  the  In- 
finite and  to  let  it  down  into  the  Finite,  which 
thus  becomes  a  colossal  work  mirroring  Egyptian 
origin.  The  Pyramid  is  a  kind  of  erect  Nile 
descending  from  Heaven  into  the  land  of  Egypt 
and  spreading  oat  over  it  broadly,  somewhat  like 
an  inundation.  We  are  not  to  forget  that  Egypt 
along  with  everything  in  it,  even  the  Pyramid, 
is  *' the  gift  of  the  Nile." 

VII.  The  geometry  of  the  Pyramid  is  a  phase 
not  to  be  neorlected.  The  straio^ht  line  now 
appears  and  adjusts  the  huge  masses  to  its 
authority.  The  Pyramid  is  not  a  pile  of  stones 
like  the  cairn  or  an  irregular  mound,  but  is  built 
everywhere  on  straight  lines,  each  block  being 
hewn  and  harmonized  to  an  order  which  is 
mathematical.  Nature  is  transformed  and  re- 
adapted  with  a  purpose,  controlled  by  this  funda- 
mental rectilineal  principle,  which  the  builder 
must  know  and  apply,  thus  becoming  aware  how 
he  has  to  construct  along  certain  geometric  lines 
in  order  to  make  his  Enclosure. 

But  we  must  note  here  the  peculiar  Egyptian 
avoidance  of  the  rectangular  when  possible.  The 
lines  of  the  Pyramid  though  straight  Are  slanting. 
Particularly  that  which  is  most  manifest  in  the 
Pyramid  is  the  slanting  triangle,  which  is  prop- 
erly the  only  form  visible.  Four  such  triangles 
constitute  its  sides  and  nothing  else  can  be  seen ; 


TEE  PYBAMID.  83 

that  seems  to  be  just  the  revelation  of  this  early 
Egyptian  mind.  Hence  comes  probably  the  idea 
of  the  sacred  triangle  which  captivated  the* fancy 
of  some  famous  Greeks  versed  in  Egypt's  lore, 
notably  Plato  and  Plutarch. 

But  there  is  in  the  Pyramid  an  unseen  geomet- 
ric shape,  the  ground-plan,  and  this  is  rectangu- 
lar. It  lies  prostrate  on  the  earth  out  of  sight, 
yet  is  the  base  of  the  whole  structure,  as  this 
rises  upon  slanting  lines  to  a  point,  thus  mani- 
festing to  vision  the  four  triangular  sides.  Take 
a  thought  of  this  implicit  hidden  rectangle  in  the 
Pyramid,  for  it  is  what  the  Greek  will  seize  upon 
and  bring  forth  to  the  light;  his  temple  will  be 
quadrangular  almost  throughout,  the  chief  ex- 
ception being  the  triangular  pediment  produced 
by  the  sloping  roof.  Note  here  that  the  Pyra- 
mid is  all  roof,  and  all  wall  and  all  column  as 
support,  being  not  yet  differentiated  into  these 
constructive  elements,  though  containing  them 
in  its  massive  Enclosure. 

It  is  a  suggestive  fact  that  Egypt  has  no  three- 
cornered  Pyramids  with  a  triangular  base ;  not 
one  has  been  discovered  there,  it  is  said.  But 
when  the  Pyramid  moves  up  the  Nile  into  Nubia, 
it  is  found  with  a  triangular  base,  which,  how- 
ever, destroys  its  character.  For  its  secret  de- 
terminant must  be  the  quadrangle,  the  Egyptian 
Pyramid  is  itself  by  being  four-sided  in  its  slant. 
Thus  a  kind  of  bi-lateral  symmetry  is  retained  in 


84         ARCHITECTUEE  —  CHAPTEB  FIRST. 

it,  and  controls  its  four  triangles,  giving  also 
variety  instead  of  monotony.  It  is  interesting 
to  note' the  two  contrary  trends  of  development 
out  of  the  Pyramid :  the  Greek  and  European  to 
the  North  on  one  side,  the  Nubian  and  African 
to  the  South  on  the  other  side. 

The  Pyramid  may  be  called  the  most  abstract 
of  all  great  structures;  it  had  to  be  so  in  order 
to  be  the  first.  But  the  Hiojh  Building  is  the 
most  concrete,  embracing,  when  rightly  finished, 
quite  all  the  forms  of  Architecture.  The  sim- 
plest elements  of  Geometry  the  Pyramid  empha- 
sizes to  the  eye,  namely  Point,  Line  and  Surface, 
out  of  which  all  geometric  figures  unfold.  No 
ornament,  no  moulding,  no  cornice  do  we  see, 
the  Pyramid  is  naked  Form  reduced  to  its  pri- 
mary genetic  elements,  the  aforesaid  Point,  Line, 
and  Surface.  Yet  these  are  what  control  the 
transformation  of  Nature  in  all  the  complicated 
products  of  industry.  The  Pyramid  thus  holds 
up  in  the  most  impressive,  yea  smiting  manner 
the  lesson  which  man  has  to  learn  in  order  to 
subdue  the  physical  world  to  his  ends.  It  is,  in 
this  aspect,  a  colossal  lesson  in  Geometry,  show- 
ing that  Nature,  however  vast  she  may  be,  is 
controlled  by  Mathematics. 

Egypt  of  the  Pyramids  geometrizes  in  stone, 
she  has  to  materialize  geometric  forms  in  order 
to  understand  them ;  she  is  not  yet  able  to  seize 
them  apart,  as  they  are  in  themselves.     It  is  the 


THE  PYBAMID.  S5 

Greek  (particularly  Pythagoras  and  Plato)  who 
abstracts  Point,  Line  and  Surface,  and,  combin- 
ing them  into  many  forms,  organizes  out  of  them 
the  science  of  Geometry,  the  ideal  prototype  of 
all  building.  It  required  the  idealist  with  his 
view  of  the  world  to  make  this  grand  abstraction 
from  matter,  and  to  build  his  Pure  Forms  or 
Ideas  separated  from  the  realm  of  sense,  into  the 
geometric  edifice.  The  service  of  Plato  and  of 
Platonism  informing  the  mathematical  conscious- 
ness of  the  European  race  can  hardly  be  over- 
estimated. But  it  began  far  back  in  Egypt,  and 
is  instinctively  at  work  building  the  Pyramids 
which  so  strikingly  show  their  own  constructive 
principle  in  its  primal,  most  simple  expression. 
Pyramidal  Egypt  is  still  sunk  in  sense-perception 
and  has  to  take  its  instruction  in  that  way ;  hence 
it  erects  a  colossal  object-lesson  in  the  Pyramid, 
whereby  the  coming  Egyptian  and  indeed  the 
whole  future  race  can  sense  the  rudiments  of 
Geometry  unseparated  as  yet  from  their  material 
body. 

Through  its  four  slanting  triangles  coming  to 
a  point  at  the  top,  the  Pyramid  is  a  roof,  is  in- 
deed all  roof,  as  if  made  to  shed  something  con- 
tinuously and  everlastingly,  but  not  rain  in  Egypt 
which  seldom  has  a  shower.  Time  was  the  great 
destructive  assailant  whom  the  Egyptian  every- 
where sought  to  ward  off  and  overcome.  The 
sloping  Pyramid  sheds  Time,  whose  ever-drip- 


86  ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIBST. 

ping  moments  seem  to  glance  off  from  its  sides 
and  fall  back  vanishing  into  the  sands  of  the 
Libyan  desert  at  its  base.  Thus  the  Pyramid 
suggests  indestructibility,  immortality,  immortal 
itself  against  the  Destroyer,  and  preserving  im- 
mortal even  the  human  body  intrusted  to  its  care. 
That  pyramidal  slant  we  may  regard  as  a  Time- 
shedder,  and  thus  identify  its  form  with  its 
purpose.  Moreover  the  outer  coating  of  polished 
granite  slabs  which  we  may  still  see  partly  cover- 
ing the  third  great  Pyramid  —  that  of  Myce- 
rinus —  suggests  the  gliding-off  of  some  attacking 
power;  it  seems  as  if  the  ray  of  light  shot  out 
of  our  own  eye  glances  from  the  smooth  surface 
into  vacancy.  Some  have  seen  in  the  four  tri- 
angles of  the  Pyramid  the  four  faces  of  the  great 
God  of  Egypt  looking  in  the  four  directions  and 
showing  the  same  imperturbable,  divinely  change- 
less look  at  all  the  changes  of  Time  and  at  all 
the  blows  of  Fate,  the  defiant  stoic  of  the  ages. 
VIII.  The  eye  follows  the  masses  struggling 
upward  in  the  Pyramid  and  gradually  coming  to 
a  point  or  cessation,  as  it  were  slowly  lessening  its 
prodigious  effort  to  mount  to  the  empyrean  and 
vanish  into  nothingness.  In  its  ascent  the  Pyra- 
mid gives  up.  But  in  its  descent  it  grows  enor- 
mously in  the  sense  of  power,  as  the  whole 
sweeps  widening  on  every  side  to  the  earth. 
The  downward  movement  of  the  Pyramid  is 
simply    overwhelming,  crushing    in    its  triumph 


THE  PYBAMID,    ,  87 

over  the  counter  tendency  or  the  upward  move- 
ment. The  fall  is  here  celebrated,  intensified 
and  made  eternal  in  stone.  The  view  of  the 
Pyramid  calls  up  the  principle  of  falling  bodies, 
increasing  in  momentum  and  hence  in  power 
through  a  succession  of  squares  in  the  descent 
earthward.  We  may  regard  it  as  showing  a  kind 
of  petrified  law  of  gravitation,  an  eternal  fall  of 
a  vast  material  body  whose  accelerating  velocity 
downward  is  suddenly  crystallized  all  the  way  to 
the  bottom,  and  becomes  literally  visible  as  the 
Pyramid. 

As  already  said  the  down-bearing  movement  of^ 
the  Pyramid  is  supremely  victorious  over  the 
up-bearing,  though  the  latter  is  always  present 
and  struggling.  This  gives  it  a  peculiar  Oriental 
cast,  corresponding  with  the  institutions  of  the 
East,  political  and  religious.  The  pressure  of 
what  is  above  upon  what  is  below  speaks  out  of 
the  monuments  of  the  Orient  and  weighs  down 
the  feelings  of  the  Occidental  observer.  Between 
these  two  principles,  the  fighting  genii  of  Archi- 
tecture, the  down-bearing  and  the  up-bearing, 
lies  the  grand  inner  struggle  of  Architecture  in  its 
endeavor  to  express  more  and  more  completely 
the  advance  of  man  toward  a  higher  freedom. 
According  to  the  gradation  of  the  triumph  of  the 
one  or  the  other  of  these  twin  foes,  we  divide  the 
architectural  sweep  of  the  world  into  Oriental, 
European,  and  Occidental. 


88  ABCHITECTUBE—GEAPTEB  FIB8T. 

The  Pyramid  is  a  tomb  for  the  king,  but  not 
in  the  European  sense,  not  even  in  the  later 
Egyptian  sense.  This  pyramidal  tomb  has  some- 
thing in  it  of  the  nature  of  a  temple  to  the  God. 
The  king  was  still  the  divine  vicegerent  and  rep- 
resentative, the  deity  incarnate.  The  separation 
between  king  and  God  had  not  yet  definitely 
taken  place  in  the  Egyptian  consciousness  at 
early  Memphis  as  it  will  later  at  Thebes.  The 
Pyramid  is  a  sort  of  commingled  tomb-temple 
dedicated  to  the  king-god,  even  if  it  had  usually 
as  adjunct  a  small  temple  near  by  for  some  ini- 
tiatory purpose.  In  the  inscriptions  we  find 
the  king  spoken  of  as  the  God  again  and  again. 
The  government  was  directly  theocratic,  or  God- 
ruled,  and  therein  undoubtedly  corresponded  to 
the  consciousness  of  the  people,  who  demanded 
a  present  deity  as  ruler,  or  the  king-god.  The 
builders  of  the  great  Pyramids  lived  at  the 
height  of  such  a  national  consciousness  and 
expressed  it  in  their  vast  monuments. 

Thus  we  seek  to  reproduce  in  ourselves,  even  if 
faintly,  that  remote  state  of  the  mind  which 
could  erect  such  massive  structures  to  their 
kings,  or  rather  king-gods.  These  they  sought 
to  keep  with  themselves  forever  in  a  building 
fortified  against  Time.  We  may  suppose  that 
these  king-gods  were  regarded  as  the  bringers  of 
the  blessings  of  the  Nile,  the  seen  embodiment 
of  the  unseen  Giver  whose   dwelling-place  the 


THE  PYBAMID.  89 

Egyptian  built  in  the  Pyramid.  For  that  is  the 
chief  function  of  Architecture ;  the  people  col- 
lectively construct  their  common  institutional 
home  in  that  of  their  God. 

The  Pyramid  is  erected  by  associated  Man  as 
the  abode  and  final  resting-place  of  that  Spirit 
or  Ego  which  has  brought  about  such  association, 
which  is  the  very  source  and  center  of  it,  and  so 
is  divine  and  undying.  For  associated  Man  is 
immortal  while  the  individual  vanishes.  The 
Pyramid-building  king  as  individual  dies,  but  he 
lives  in  his  work  of  association.  His  sarcophagus 
is  put  into  his  Pyramid,  which  is  to  be  the  eter- 
nal home  of  him  eternal  through  uniting  and 
associating  his  people. 

Summary.  It  would  seem,  then,  that  the 
oldest  of  the  great  structures  of  the  Valley  of 
the  Nile  is  the  Pyramid.  There  is  apparently  a 
line  of  Pyramid-building  kings  extending  far 
back  toward  the  beginning  of  Egyptian  History. 
The  three  greatest  Pyramids,  those  of  Cheops, 
Chephren  and  Mycerinus,  were  built  by  three 
successive  kings  belonging  to  one  dynasty,  the 
Fourth,  which  is  usually  placed  about  4000  B.C. 
Thus  they  had  been  in  existence  quite  two  thou- 
sand years  at  the  period  of  those  Egyptian  kings 
who  were  the  first  great  conquerors,  represented 
by  Sesostris  (often  supposed  to  be  Osirtasen  I.  of 
the  Twelfth  Dynasty).  And  before  the  time  of 
tiiese  royal  builders  of  the  largest  Pyramids  were 


90  ABCHITFCTUEE— CHAPTER  FIBST. 

builders  of  the  smaller  Pyramids,  which  thus 
form  a  kind  of  line  going  back  to  the  starting- 
point  of  Egypt's  construction. 

Moreover  the  larger  Pyramids  grew  by  addi- 
tions to  the  outside,  by  new  layers  built  over 
an  older  and  smaller  Pyramid.  Investigation 
has  shown  that  several  such  layers  have  been 
added  to  the  original  kernel,  also  pyramidal  but 
far  smaller.  It  must  have  been  the  ambition  of 
the  new  monarch  or  of  the  period  to  enlarge 
what  was  already  large,  to  transcend  the  visible 
limit  which  the  previous  age  had  reached  in 
construction.  We  may  well  behold  in  this  fact 
the  spirit  rising  to  the  Beyond,  reaching  over 
the  limitation  of  the  present ;  an  aspiration  for 
the  Infinite  we  can  hardly  help  seeing  in  this 
dissatisfaction  with  the  given,  transmitted  work 
of  the  aforetime.  The  Egyptian  built  the 
primordial  fact  of  human  spirit,  its  limit-trans- 
cending nature,  into  the  Pyramid. 
•  Of  these  Pyramids  one  hundred,  as  already 
stated,  have  been  counted,  of  various  sizes. 
They  lie  in  a  small  stretch  of  country,  not  far 
from  the  site  of  ancient  Memphis.  This  one 
large  group  has  several  subordinate  groups, 
which  are  named  after  the  neighboring  villages 
(Gizeh,  Daschur,  Meidun,  Saccara).  Most  of 
them  are  constructed  out  of  huge  blocks  of 
quarried  stone,  some  of  which  are  more  than 
thirty    feet   long;     others   are    made    of    brick. 


THE  PYRAMID.  91 

Usually  a  narrow  entrance  leads  to  the  tomb 
containing  the  sarcophagus  of  the  royal  builder. 
This  entrance  however  was  stopped  up. 

As  the  Pyramid  rises  from  its  broad  base 
resting  on  the  earth,  it  gradually  moves  to  a 
point,  passing  as  it  were  from  the  material  to 
immaterial,  from  the  extended  to  the  non- 
extended.  What  is  the  suggestion  of  such  a 
form?  As  it  carries  the  eye  upward,  there  is  a 
slow  vanishing  of  the  sensuous  material  into 
nothingness.  The  contemplation  of  the  Pyra- 
mid as  a  work  of  art  brings  home  to  the  soul 
the  transitoriness  of  the  visible  world,  which 
was  made  an  ever-present  object  to  Egypt.  The 
same  lesson  is  emphasized  in  the  Obelisk. 

From  the  Pyramid  came  the  slant  which  is  so 
noticeable  in  Egyptian  construction.  Even  a 
double  slant  is  found  in  some  Pyramids,  as  also 
in  the  Obelisks,  appearing  in  a  hurry  to  come  to 
the  end.  The  huge  Pylon  in  front  of  the 
Temple  has  slanting  sides,  yet  these  are  not 
carried  out  to  the  point.  The  Temple,  though 
prostrate,  grows  less  with  each  additional  part. 
Egypt  puts  into  her  building  the  evanishment  of 
the  Present,  the  Sensuous,  the  Visible.  To  be 
sure,  the  slant  we  may  look  at  in  two  ways : 
from  above  downward  (like  the  Nile  appearing), 
and  from  below  upward  (the  disappearance). 

The  largest  Pyramid,  that  of  Cheops,  has  been 
estimated  to  cover  more  than  thirteen  acres.     It 


92  ABCUITECTUBE—  GIIAPTEB  FIRST, 

is  of  a  greater  size  than  any  other  building  in  the 
world,  and  by  far  more  massive,  being  almost 
wholly  a  solid  wall,  with  galleries  and  chambers, 
all  of  which  are  relatively  small.  It  is,  there- 
fore, an  Enclosure,  though  its  passages  and 
chambers  are  like  those  tunneled  in  the  rock. 
It  has  an  entrance,  which  was  carefully  closed. 
The  attempt  of  the  Pyramid-builders  was  to 
block  up  all  openings  in  their  structure ;  nobody 
in  the  future  was  to  see  the  inside. 

Again  man  has  started,  in  the  Occident,  to 
erect  buildings  which  have  begun  to  reach  the 
height  of  the  Greatest  Pyramid.  The  modern 
High  Building  springs  or  may  spring  from  the 
same  rectangular  base,  and  runs  upward  not  in 
slanting  but  in  straight  lines,  carrying  the  whole 
material  burden  to  the  top.  The  Pyramid,  how- 
ever, seems  more  and  more  to  throw  off  its 
enormous  burden  of  stone  till  it  comes  to  the 
point  or  to  nothing.  Thus  the  feeling  of  rise, 
yea  of  matter  rising  against  gravity  is  dominant 
in  the  High  Building,  while  in  the  Pyramid  the 
structure  refuses  to  lift  its  own  weight  but  keeps 
throwing  it  oH  with  prodigious  labor.  The 
overcoming  of  the  rise  is  its  suggestion. 

In  the  Pyramid  the  wall  is  supremely  the 
supporter  of  the  vast  superincumbent  burden 
which  it  has  to  carry  without  sinking  or  settling 
or  being  crushed.  Those  lower  blocks  of  gran- 
ite in  the  Great  Pyramid  thirty  feet  long  and  six 


THE  PYBAMID.  93 

feet  high  are  the  typical  gigantesque  forms 
upbearing  the  colossal  pile.  But  in  the  High 
Building  the  wall  has  no  such  burden  of  support- 
ing, on  the  contrary  it  is  the  supported,  the  up- 
borne from  within  (by  the  steel  skeleton).  The 
toiling  millions  of  the  Nile  Valley  with  their  bur- 
den we  can  see  imaged  in  the  masses  of  the 
Pyramid,  building  their  spirit,  burden-bearing, 
into  stone.  Not  wholly  silent,  yet  not  very 
talkative  is  the  colossal  shape.  Yet  this  work 
is  their  national  act. 

The  Cathedrals  of  Europe  have  also  a  mas- 
siveness  in  their  enclosing  walls  which  hints 
the  downward  pressure  of  the  earthly.  But  the 
spire,  dome,  tower  separates  and  points  upward ; 
thus  the  dualism  is  explicit  in  two  shapes.  The 
separation  of  the  Obelisk  from  the  Pyramid  has 
something  of  the  same  significance.  It  is  re- 
lieved of  excessive  downwardness  by  being  of 
one  stone,  not  stones  piled  on  top  of  each  other, 
one  on  the  shoulders  of  the  other.  This  seems 
to  be  one  reason  why  Egypt  insisted  that  the 
Obelisk  should  be  a  monolith. 

Have  we  the  right  to  consider  the  Pyramid  as 
the  genetic  starting  point  of  Architecture?  It 
is  still  the  largest  building  as  space-enclosing; 
it  is  the  oldest,  put  at  the  beginning,  out  of 
which  all  Architecture  is  to  proceed.  More 
than  sixty  centuries  (if  the  calculation  of 
Lenormant   and   others   is    correct)    have   they 


94  ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIB8T. 

stood,  and  have  been  viewed  by  architects 
down  to  the  present,  and  are  still  studied. 
There  is  at  their  source  a  science,  Geometry, 
which  controls  them,  and  orders  the  matter  in 
them.  It  was  geometric  science  which  pre- 
pared and  fitted  into  their  place  these  huge 
blocks  of  marble.  Such  a  science  lies  at  the 
basis  of  all  construction,  to-day,  yesterday, 
and  forever.  In  the  Pyramid  we  observe 
the  point,  line  'and  surface  drawn  forth  to  the 
vision,  they  are  the  things  which  are  first  beheld. 
They  are  the  primary  abstract  elements  of 
Geometry.  Any  other  form  would  obscure  these 
elements.  The  point  is  strongly  emphasized,  so 
are  the  four  lines  (or  edges),  and  then  the  four 
surfaces  embraced  in  these  lines.  Out  of  these 
elements  all  geometric  forms  are  constructed, 
and  they  are  the  ideal  constructive  principles  of 
matter".  The  natural  world  molded  into  its  ele- 
mentary structural  shapes  by  Geometry,  is  here 
made  visible  in  its  most  colossal  manifestation. 
The  Pyramid  may  then  be  deemed  on  the 
whole  the  genetic  building  of  all  Architecture. 
Perhaps  we  have  the  right  to  see  here  even  the 
Pointed  Arch  in  its  earliest  form,  which  has 
two  long  voussoirs  leaning  against  each  other 
(Pyramid  of  Mycerinus).  The  round  Arch  also 
was  known  to  the  early  Egyptians.  And  the 
horizontal  Architrave  resting  heavily  upon  its 
supports  was  represented  by  thousands  of  huge 


THE  PYBAMID.  95 

blocks  of  stone  in  the  Pyramid,  which  may  in- 
deed be  considered  all  wall,  all  roof  and  all  col- 
umn m  one,  containing  implicitly  these  forms  of 
construction.  The  latter  are  now  to  be  seen  un- 
folding out  of  it  and  becoming  separate,  individ- 
ualized, set  up  in  their  own  right,  which  right  of 
distinct  individuality  they  have  maintained  down 
to  this  day.  The  first  of  these  forms  to  be 
evolved  is  the  Column,  that  of  support,  which 
is  an  inner  evolution  in  Egyptian  Architecture, 
but  which  is  destined  to  pass  outward  in  Hellas. 

It  has  been  repeatedly  said  in  the  foregoing 
account  that  the  period  of  the  Pyramids  lasted  a 
thousand  years  in  round  numbers.  During  this 
long  time  there  must  have  been  some  evolution, 
however  slow.  Can  it  be  traced?  Possibly  later, 
but  with  our  present  facts  this  cannot  be  done 
in  any  degree  of  completeness.  We  note  a 
difference  of  form  in  the  Pyramids ;  in  this  vari- 
ety of  shapes  some  have  seen  a  gradation  of 
development.  At  present  it  will  be  enough  to 
classify  these  external  shapes  by  that  principle, 
the  slant,  which  the  Pyramids  have  in  common 
with  nearly  all  the  monuments  of  Egypt. 

1.  The  many-slanted  Pyramid.  This  is  best 
represented  by  the  so-called  stepped  Pyramid 
(provided  with  steps)  of  Saccarah.  Each  of  its 
four  sides  has  six  huge  steps  varying  from  38  to 
29  feet  in  height,  with  slanting  walls  from  step 
to  step,  the  whole  being  about  190  feet   high. 


96  ABGEITECTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST. 

Thus  it  has  its  resemblance  to  the  Pyramid  with 
stairs,  examples  of  which  are  found  in  Yucatan 
and  elsewhere.  This  stepped  Pyramid  of  Sac- 
carah  has  been  regarded  (for  instance,  byMari- 
ette)  as  the  earliest  Pyramid  and  hence  as  the 
oldest  building  in  the  world.  Another  variation 
of  the  many-slanted  Pyramid  is  that  of  Medum, 
in  which  the  slant  of  the  wall  between  the  steps 
is  very  slight.  Thus  it  seems  like  a  series  of 
diminishing  storys  one  on  top  of  the  other.  It 
suggests  the  pagoda  of  Hindoo  and  Chinese 
Architecture,  which  may  well  have  obtained  hints 
from  early  Egypt. 

2.  The  double-slanted  pyramid.  This  is 
not  in  the  form  of  steps,  but  each  of  the  four 
sides  has  two  slants  at  different  angles.  The 
most  striking  example  is  the  Pyramid  of  Dashur, 
which  starts  at  an  angle  of  54+  degrees,  but 
about  the  middle  it  suddenly  breaks  off  into  a 
angle  of  42+  degrees,  which  continues  to  the 
top.  It  is  evident  that  here  we  have  decidedly 
the  suggestion  of  the  Obelisk,  which  is  also  a 
double-slanted  Pyramid. 

An  enormous  amount  of  conjecture  has  played 
around  these  two  kinds  of  Pyramids,  the  many- 
slanted  and  the  double  slanted .  They  are  usually 
considered  to  be  very  ancient ;  in  fact  the  con- 
sensus of  opinion  seems  to  lean  to  considering 
them  as  incomplete  or  even  unfinished  forms  of 


THE  PYRAMID.  97 

the  one  finished  typical  form  which  is  the  fol- 
lowing : 

3.  The  single-slanted  Pyramid.  We  have 
had  this  form  before  us  in  making  the  preceding 
observations.  It  is  the  normal  Pyramid,  to  which 
the  previous  forms  are  exceptions.  Nearly  all 
the  Pyramids  of  Egypt  are  of  this  kind. 

But  here  rises  another  question,  that  of  size. 
The  pyramidal  shape  was  evidently  a  favorite  of 
all  Egj^ptians,  old  and  young,  during  their  whole 
history,  being  employed  for  small  ornaments  as 
well  for  the  largest  monuments.  Can  we  in  the 
line  of  lesser  to  greater  Pyramids  see  any  devel- 
opment? We  naturally  think  that  the  highest 
Pyramids,  those  of  Gizeh,  were  preceded  by 
smaller  ones  and  succeeded  also  by  smaller  ones ; 
not  much  more  can  be  said.  Hence  we  may  aifirm 
that  there  is  a  culmination  of  the  Pyramid-build- 
ing epoch,  with  a  growth  before  and  a  decline 
after,  this  growth  being,  as  it  were,  pyramidal  in 
outline. 

So  much  for  the  external  form  and  size  of  the 
Pyramid  with  their  manifold  variations.  Now 
we  are  to  trace  its  inner  development  into  wholly 
different  forms  which  indicate  a  new  epoch  both 
in  History  and  in  Architecture. 

7 


98  ABCHITECTUBE  —  GHAVTEB  FIRST. 


^  B.  The  Column. 

The  next  important  architectural  development 
in  Egypt  was  the  columnar,  which  had  a  variety  of 
forms.  In  general  the  supporting,  up-bearing 
principle  now  unfolds,  separating  itself  from  the 
Pyramid,  yet  showing  distinctly  its  evolution  out 
of  the  same.  The  Column  marks  decisively  the 
Second  Period  of  Egyptian  History,  a  time  of 
renewed  nationality  and  unity  after  centuries  of 
obscuration  and  dissension  coupled  with  foreign 
subjugation.  Particularly  the  Twelfth  Dynasty 
is  the  culmination  of  this  Second  Period  both  in- 
stitutionally and  architecturally,  and  seems  to  have 
been  Egypt's  most  creative  epoch.  Constructive 
forms  which  have  lasted  down  to  our  own  age 
then  began  to  appear,  signifying  the  strength 
and  richness  and  originative  power  of  a  renewed 
national  life. 

If  we  seek  to  express  what  this  great  Egyptian 
epoch  produced,  we  may  define  it  as  bringing  to 
a  new  and  distinct  validity  the  individual.  The 
Column  as  supporter  having  separated  from  the 
pyramidal  mass,  now  stands  forth  in  its  own 
right,  as  an  individual  form  of  Architecture. 
Taken  by  itself  the  Column  speaks  of  individual- 
ity, of  independence,  which  nevertheless  has  its 
duty.  But  it  is  just  this  duty,  the  burden- 
bearing,  which  calls  the    Column  into  existence. 


THE  COLUMN.  99 

In  the  Pyramid  the  individual  was  lost  amid  the 
mass,  was  not  yet  differentiated,  not  yet  truly 
born.  That  Column  at  Beni-Hassan  stepping 
forth  out  of  the  rock  can  only  signify  a  new 
assertion  of  the  Self,  of  the  Ego.  The  second 
Period  of  Egyptian  History  means  the  winning 
of  the  individual  as  a  distinct,  separate  entity 
which  from  this  point  starts  on  its  great  career 
of  future  development. 

Never  afterwards  did  Egypt  put  such  stress 
upon  the  worth  of  man.  We  are  inclined  to 
think  that  the  Twelfth  Dynasty  was  the  culmi- 
nation of  Egyptian  Spirit.  Even  the  Third 
Period,  in  spite  of  its  colossal  works,  was  hardly 
so  original  as  the  Second,  which  evolved  for  all 
time  the  Column,  yea  the  two  Columns,  as  we 
shall  hereafter  see.  Great  conquerors  now  arose. 
Egypt  broke  out  of  its  introverted  isolation  and 
asserted  itself  as  an  individual  nation  in  the 
world. 

All  this  one  will  rightly  read  not  only  in  the 
recorded  events  of  its  history  but  also  in  the 
birth  of  its  Column,  the  most  individualized 
form  in  Architecture  and  holding  its  supremacy 
to  this  day.  For  the  birth  of  the  Column 
images  a  new  birth  of  the  person,  a  new  step  in 
the  movement  of  self-consciousness.  Hence  the 
modern  man  fraternizes  so  readily  with  that  old 
Egyptian  shape  in  which  he  sees  an  early  picture 
of  his  selfhood. 


100        ABCHITECTVBE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST 

In  this  regard  the  difference  between  the 
Pyramid  (product  of  the  First  Period)  and  the 
Column  (product  of  the  Second  Period)  is  strik- 
ing. The  Pyramid  completed  itself  in  Egypt, 
and  has  never  been  employed  again  by  any  peo- 
ple. As  an  architectural  form  of  expression  its 
beginning  and  end  are  in  the  Valley  of  the  Nile. 
Thus  the  Egyptian  Pyramid  is  a  thing  done  and 
seemingly  done  forever,  persisting  through  Time 
with  a  duration  like  that  of  Time  itself .  Europe 
has  indeed  made  a  few  small  imitations  of  it 
such  as  the  Pyramid  of  Cestius  at  Eome,  but  it 
has  never  been  seriously  employed  as  an  archi- 
tectural expression  of  European  consciousness. 

On  the  other  hand  the  Column  takes  simply 
its  starting-point  in  Egypt,  specially  at  Beni- 
Hassan,  and  has  triumphantly  marched  round 
the  earth,  undergoing  every  sort  of  outer 
metamorphosis,  yet  preserving  fundamentally 
the  same  form  and  character,  and  winning 
the  favor  of  all  peoples.  Of  architectural 
forms  the  Column  is  the  most  prolific,  the 
most  capable  of  bringing  forth  new  varieties 
of  itself  fitted  to  every  conceivable  people.  The 
architectural  spirit  of  all  nations  has  found  the 
Column  the  most  plastic  constructive  shape,  the 
most  adaptable  to  the  ever-shifting  diversity  of 
nations.  Arising  in  Egypt,  passing  out  of  Egypt 
into  Greece,  moving  to  Eome  and  thence  all  over 
the  ancient  world,  transforming  itself  with  Time 


THE  COLUMN,  101 

into  classic,  medieval  and  modern,  the  Column  has 
shown  a  marvelous  power  of  self -evolution,  from 
the  dignified  to  the  grotesque,  from  the  first 
proto-Doric  shape  in  an  Egyptian  Tomb  to 
Mullett's  pig-tails  on  an  American  Government 
Building. 

It  will  be  a  part  of  our  duty  in  the  present  work 
to  trace  down  the  ages  the  main  forms  of  the  Col- 
umn, and  to  bring  out  the  grounds  for  its  Protean 
character.  Here  we  may  say  that  it  performs  a 
permanent  function  in  its  support  of  the  cover  of 
the  Enclosure,  while  the  Pyramid  and  the  Obelisk 
subserve  no  such  purpose.  These  standby  them- 
selves in  a  kind  of  individual  isolation,  and  do 
not  associate  and  combine  with  other  elements  of 
structure,  being  far  less  sociable  than  the  Col- 
umn, which  serves,  supports,  and  unites  the 
whole  building.  Hence  the  Column  finds  a 
friendly  reception  and  a  home  everywhere,  when 
it  moves  forth  from  its  native  land. 

The  development  of  the  Column  in  Egypt  had 
its  source  in  the  Tomb,  as  did  the  Pyramid, 
which,  though  the  house  of  death,  is  built  to  defy 
Death,  to  outlast  the  Destroyer  and  thus  to 
secure  immortality. 

At  the  first  glance  the  Egyptians  seemed  to  put 
supreme  stress  upon  Death,  the  Negative;  but 
really  what  they  seek  is  the  death  of  Death,  the 
negation  of  the  Negative,  the  overcoming  of  the 
Destroyer   through   Architecture,  through   con- 


102        ABC HITEC TUBE  —  GHAPTEB  FIBST. 

structing  a  fortress  which  he  cannot  take. 
Man's  body  is  made  imperishable  by  embalm- 
ment, and  is  to  have  an  imperishable  habitation. 
It  is  a  strange  thought,  but  through  the  Tomb 
Egypt  reached  its  conception  of  eternal  life, 
which  is  just  the  before-mentioned  death  of 
Death.  Hence  it  comes  that  out  of  the  Tomb 
rise  Egypt's  architectural  forms  with  their  tri- 
umph over  Death.  Ascending  the  Nile  beyond 
the  district  of  the  Pyramids,  on  the  way  from 
old  Memphis  to  new  Thebes  (though  both  of 
these  cities  are  for  us  very  old),  lies  the  ceme- 
tery of  Beni-Hassan,  where  we  can  at  present 
best  see  the  development  of  the  Column  cotem- 
poraneous  with  the  second  grand  cycle  of  what 
we  "have  called  proto-historic  Egypt. 

The  columnar  development  of  Egypt  taken  as 
a  Whole  will  show  three  stages,  each  of  which  is 
represented  by  an  architectural  form.  First  is 
the  Column  in  general,  with  its  forms  support- 
ing the  covered  Enclosure  and  unfolding  from 
square  to  round,  from  the  pier  to  the  proto- 
Dorian  and  proto-Egyptian  columnar  forms. 
Second  is  the  Obelisk,  a  fully  separate  four- 
cornered  columnar  form,  disconnected  and  inde- 
pendent, upholding  only  itself.  Third  is  the 
Mammeisi  (or  Typhonium)  a  peristylar  form  or 
row  of  columns  encompassing  a  wall  like  a  Greek 
temple.     Interrelated  are  all  three,  being  derived 


TEE  COLUMN.  103 

from  a  common  parent,  the  Pyramid,  and  show- 
ing the  kinship  in  a  number  of  ways. 

1.  Columnar  Forms,  Such  we  may  call  the 
early-  variations  of  the  Column.  As  it  unfolds 
from  the  Pyramid,  it  throws  out  diverse  shapes, 
all  of  which,  however,  show  a  certain  common 
character  which  we  can  designate  as  columnar. 
Doubtless  the  most  interesting  of  these  early 
columnar  forms  is  the  Column  which  so  closely 
resembles  the  Doric,  since  it  almost  forces  the 
mind  to  connect  Egyptian  and  Greek  Architec- 
ture, and  to  see  the  latter  springing  out  of  the 
former.  This  is  named  the  proto-Doric  Column, 
but  in  the  same  period  and  in  the  same  place 
there  developed  the  second  kind  which  we  may 
call  similarly  the  pro  to-Egyptian  Column,  as  we 
shall  find  it  unfolding  later  on  Egyptian  soil,  for 
example  at  Karnak. 

These  columnar  forms  are  an  interior  develop- 
ment and  on  the  whole  remain  so  in  Egypt.  At 
the  same  time  they  begin  to  show  themselves 
uniting  in  a  row  or  colonnade ;  in  spite  of  their 
individuality  and  separation,  they  possess  an  in- 
herent associative  principle  which  does  not  allow 
them  properly  to  stand  alone.  This  social  nature 
the  Column  will  preserve  and  develop  when  it 
passes  beyond  Egypt. 

I.  As  Architecture  is  fundamentally  space- 
enclosing,  and  seeks  to  obtain  more  and  more 
room   inside,  which  may  be    called  its    internal 


104        ABGHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIBST, 

freedom,  we  have  first  to  consider  the  relation  of 
the  Column  to  the  Enclosure.  It  has  been  noted 
that  the  Pyramid  was  almost  wholly  wall,  but 
now  out  of  the  solid  mass  of  stone  we  are  to 
behold  other  architectural  forms  move  forth  into 
their  independent  existence. 

The  roof  of  the  building  is  that  part  which 
requires  to  be  supported ;  it  is  the  wall  extending 
over  and  covering  an  inner  space.  The  heavy 
beams  of  the  ceiling  call  forth  their  supporter 
different  from  the  wall  which  both  supports  and 
encloses.  Hence  the  inside  supporting  principle 
appears,  the  pier  and  then  the  column.  The 
square  pier  is  evidently  derived  from  the  wall, 
we  may  call  it  a  wall  which  simply  upholds  but 
does  not  enclose,  leaving  an  open  space  within. 
From  this  square  pier  the  round  column  is  devel- 
oped inside  the  Temple;  the  sharp  edges  are 
beveled  off  for  the  sake  of  a  smoother  interflow 
of  people  in  the  building  and  of  a  higher  beauty 
and  harmony. 

Here  then  we  observe  the  primal  differentiation: 
the  wall  which  is  both  supporting  and  enclosing 
now  throws  off  within  itself  its  supporting 
principle  into  a  separate  form  which  is  the 
columnar.  This  upholds  the  covering,  underneath 
which  there  can  be  a  free  intercourse  of  men. 

n.  We  have  noted  the  transition  from  the 
square  pier  to  the  round  column,  which  has 
proved   itself   the    most   enduring   architectural 


THE  COLUMN.  106 

form.  In  the  Egyptian  Temple  we  begin  to  find 
column  and  tie-beam,  or  the  trabeated  colonnade 
which  is  destined  to  have  a  great  history  and  to 
pass  through  many  stages  of  evolution  in  Orient 
and  Occident.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  it 
originated  in  Egypt,  as  far  as  we  can  predicate 
origin  at  all  of  such  matters.  More  decisively 
we  can  affirm  that  it  developed  in  Egypt  quite 
from  its  germ  in  the  rock-tomb,  in  which  a  pil- 
lar supporting  the  superincumbent  weight  above 
would  be  left  in  position.  This  development  is 
the  interesting  point  in  our  present  study,  and  we 
shall  endeavor  to  mark  its  most  important  steps. 
One  of  the  oldest  monuments  of  Egypt  is  the 
so-called  Temple  of  the  Sphinx,  which  Mariette 
brouo^ht  to  liojht  in  1853.  Clearing  the  interior 
of  the  accumulated  sand  of  ages,  he  found 
a  long  passage  with  huge  monolithic  square 
piers  on  each  side  supporting  a  ceiling  composed 
of  stone  tie-beams  ten  feet  long.  Here  then  we 
have  the  real  original  norm  of  trabeate  Architec- 
ture: two  upright  beams  with  a  beam  laid 
across.  We  must  note  this,  for  Greek  Archi- 
tecture is  often  strangely  called  trabeate,  when 
these  two  upright  square  piers  have  already  be- 
come round  columns.  But  now  we  behold  the 
germ,  as  it  were,  of  all  entrances,  made  not  of 
wood  but  of  stone ;  also  the  forms  are  monolithic, 
colossal,  truly  Egyptian  in  character.  The  whole 
is  called  after  Mariette' s  designation,  a  Temple, 


106        ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST. 

but  it  has  many  points  in  common  with  a  Tomb 
(Mastaba);  to  this  day  archselogists  are  dis- 
cussing which  it  is,  Temple  or  Tomb.  It  is 
probably  a  transitional  stage  between  the  two, 
showing  a  phase  of  that  basic  architectural  move- 
ment of  early  Egypt  from  Tomb  to  Temple. 
But  the  fact  we  wish  to  emphasize  in  the  pres- 
ent connection  is  that  the  Temple  of  the  Sphinx 
shows  the  primordial  norm  of  the  architectural 
entrance  or  passage:  two  vertical  stone  blocks 
with  a  horizontal  stone  block  as  a  cross-beam 
above,  underneath  which  man  enters  an  Enclos- 
ure. Also  a  number  of  these  forms  are  put 
too^ether  and  make  a  continuous  aisle  suo^gestinor 
the  colonnaded  hall.  Thus  we  have  the  good 
luck  to  see  the  primitive  genetic  shape  out  of 
which  the  later  Theban  Temple  will  be  evolved 
and  which  has  its  suo^o^estion  of  the  Greek  Tem- 
pie,  and  of  thousands  upon  thousands  of  edifices 
reaching  in  a  line  down  from  this  ancient  Egyp- 
tian edifice  to  the  colonnaded  entrance  of  yonder 
Kailroad  Station. 

III.  But  now  comes  a  new  and  greater  stage 
in  architectural  evolution.  Passing  up  the  Nile 
from  Memphis,  along  with  the  movement  of 
Egyptian  civilization,  we  come  to  the  necropolis 
of  Beni-Hassan,  which  lies  well  on  the  way  to- 
ward Thebes.  It  is  chiefly  the  work  of  the 
Twelfth  Djmasty,  which  ruled  all  Egypt  many 
hundred  years  after  the  Fourth  Dynasty,  the  chief 


THE  COLUMN.  107 

Pyramid-builders,    and   before  the   irruption  of 
the  Hyksos. 

The  supreme  architectural  f  act  of  Beni-Hassan 
is  the  appearance  of  two  Doric  Columns  nearly 
complete  at  the  entrance  of  a  Tomb,  to  which 
they  form  a  kind  of  facade  with  entablature. 
The  whole  is  so  decidedly  Hellenic  in  its  sugges- 
tion that  one  regards  it  at  first  as  constructed  in 
the  age  of  the  Ptolomies.  But  the  inscriptions 
mention  everywhere  the  kings  of  the  Twelfth 
Dynasty  as  builders.  These  columns  must  then 
have  been  made  more  than  a  thousand  years  be- 
fore the  earliest  known  Doric  Temple  was  built 
in  Greece.  Champollion  first  named  them  proto- 
Doric,  and  this  name  has  clung  to  them  in  spite 
of  protests.  We  find  here  the  fluted  Column 
with  sixteen  flutings .  We  find  also  the  eight-sided 
and  the  sixteen-sided  pillars,  showing  the  whole 
transition  from  the  four-sided  (square)  piers  of 
the  Temple  of  the  Sphinx  to  the  round  and  even 
fluted  shaft  of  the  Column.  Already  they  have 
the  square  abacus,  though  the  echinus  is  want- 
ing; they  have  no  distinctly  developed  base, 
though  they  rest  upon  a  thin  round  plate  of 
stone.  The  architrave  is  present  and  also  a 
projecting  cornice,  but  no  frieze,  excepting 
one  or  two  possible  hints.  Such  is  the  proto- 
Doric  column  of  Beni-Hassan,  a  most  important 
pre-Hellenic  stage  of  Hellenic  Architecture. 

But  just  here    springs  up  a  hot  controversy. 


108        ABCEITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIBST. 

There  are  modern  writers  who  hold  that  the 
Greek  developed  every  constructive  form  which 
he  employs  out  of  the  timber  first  and  then  out 
of  the  stone  of  his  own  land.  He  was  the  origi- 
nal in  everything,  he  did  not  get  anything  from 
anywhere,  or  at  most  only  a  hint  or  stimulation. 
Such  a  view,  however,  substantially  denies  the 
evolution  of  Greek  civilization  out  of  the  Orient, 
and  cuts  in  twain  the  inner  continuity  of  history. 
Nothing  further  need  be  said  of  such  a  theory. 

IV.  But  we  are  not  yet  done  with  Beni-Has- 
san,  which  seems  to  have  been  a  germinal  center 
of  many  architectural  forms.  Another  kind  of 
column  is  found  there,  wholly  different  from  the 
proto-Doric,  the  so-called  lotus  column  (proto- 
Egyptian),  derived  apparently  from  the  vegeta- 
ble kingdom.  If  four  stalks  of  the  Egyptian 
lotus  be  tied  together  just  under  their  unopened 
buds  we  have  the  suggestion  of  this  column  with 
its  shaft  and  its  capital.  Here  again  is  a  colum- 
nar form,  out  of  which  developed  numerous 
other  similar  but  more  complex  forms,  particu- 
larly in  later  Egyptian  Architecture.  Eight 
stalks  and  more  are  found  tied  in  this  columnar 
sheaf ;  then  the  stem  of  papyrus  is  taken  as  well 
as  that  of  the  lotus.  Still  further  the  closed 
buds  of  these  earlier  capitals  seem  to  blossom 
out  when  they  reach  Thebes  and  take  the 
shape  of  the  corolla,  on  which  the  leaf-like 
calix    is    drawn    as  an    ornament.     Such    was 


fHE  COLUMN.  lOd 

the  marvelous  flowering  of  this  truly  Egyptian 
column.  Nor  should  we  forget  its  later  de- 
scendants, among  which  we  may  reckon  the 
Gothic  clustered  column,  as  well  as  Corinthian 
and  Byzantine  capitals,  with  a  possible  suggestion 
of  the  Ionic  volute,  which  is  found  decidedly 
expressed  in  Egyptian  reliefs. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  Beni-Hassan  is  a  genetic 
spot  not  only  for  Egyptian  but  for  all  future 
Architecture.  The  striking  fact  is  that  Egypt  will 
not  develop  the  proto-Doric  form  of  the  column 
but  the  vegetable  form,  which  will  celebrate  its 
grand  flowering  at  Karnak,  at  the  Ramesseum,  at 
Medinet  Abu,  all  of  these  being  products  of 
the  Theban  renascence  during  the  third  or  New 
Period.  Ever  afterward  Egypt  will  cling  to  her 
plant-shaped  column,  not  renouncing  it  in  her 
Temples  erected  during  the  Greek  Ptolomies. 
And  just  this  difference  in  selecting  its  basic 
columnar  form  reflects  the  difference  between 
the  Egyptian  and  Hellenic  spirit.  For  the  proto- 
Doric  column  will  develop  mathematically  on  fixed 
lines,  with  size  and  proportion  given  by  the  total 
structure  according  to  a  definite  modulus.  But  the 
Egyptian  column  is  not  confined  by  any  such  law, 
but  reaches  forth  toward  colossality  in  and  of  its 
own  Egyptian  nature,  aspiring,  beyond  itself  and 
reaching  out  for  the  Infinite.  Very  significant 
is  it  to  see  this  national  selection  of  the  different 
columns  at  Beni-Hassan. 


110^       ABCHITECTUBE —  GEAPTEB  FinST. 

2.  The  Obelisk.  Another  architectural  form 
peculiar  to  Egypt  is  the  Obelisk  —  a  Greek  term 
with  various  meanings,-  as  little  spear  or  little  spit, 
or  again  a  spindle  or  needle  (hence  Cleopatra's 
needle).  There  is  no  doubt  that  the  Obelisk 
evolved  out  of  the  Pyramid,  beginning  to  appear 
prominently  in  the  12th  Dynasty,  though  giv- 
ing signs  of  itself  in  a  small  way  long  before. 
As  in  case  of  the  Pyramid,  we  must  divide  the 
Obelisk  into  the  little  and  large ;  it  commenced  to 
show  its  colossal,  truly  Egyptian  tendency  in  the 
Second  Period  and  unfolded  to  its  full  greatness 
in  the  Third  Period,  though  stray  samples  of  in- 
ferior size  have  been  found  in  the  First  Period. 
Thus  the  Obelisk  becomes  distinctly  national  in 
the  genetic  epoch  of  Egypt's  architectural  forms. 
For  no  other  people  ever  produced  an  Obelisk  of 
the  Egyptian  sort.  It  belongs  as  completely  and 
as  exclusively  to  the  land  of  the  Nile  as  the 
Pyramid.  But  other  nations,  ancient  and  modern , 
have  coveted  Obelisks,  which  existed  in  such 
marvelous  profusion  at  one  time  that  Egypt 
seemed  to  turn  Obelisk-maker  with  the  same  toil 
and  devotion  she  showed  as  Pyramid-builder. 
We  have  to  suppose  that  the  national  conscious- 
ness found  expression  in  this  peculiar  monument. 
It  is  as  if  the  whole  people  labored  year  after 
year  to  make  the  Obelisk,  quite  as  they  did  dur- 
inof  the  Middle  Ages  to  erect  a  CathedTal.  Ao^ain 
we  affirm  as  in  case  of  the  Pyramids  that  such 


THE  column:  111 

works  cannot  spring  from  the  caprice  of  a  despot 
imposing  upon  his  subjects  unwilling  tasks.  As- 
sociated Egypt  beheld  an  image  of  her  power 
and  greatness  and  unity  in  these  mighty  shapes, 
which  arose  and  developed  to  their  full  magni- 
tude through  the  united  will  of  one  nation,  after 
a  long  time  of  dissension  and  separation  lying 
between  the  Fourth  and  Twelfth  Dynasties. 

And  this  primal  effect  of  the  Obelisk  steals 
to-day  subtly  into  the  heart  of  the  sympathetic 
spectator.  To  produce  them  and  especially  so 
many  of  them  through  so  many  centuries  is  still 
felt  to  be  a  great  national  act  as  much  as  any 
long-continued  war  for  independence  or  for  con- 
quest known  in  history.  And  herein  the  evi- 
dence is  plain.  Every  nation  old  and  new  has 
sought  to  get  at  least  one  Obelisk  from  Egypt. 
Ancient  Kome  is  said  to  have  had  twelve,  yet  not 
one  of  them  of  her  own  make,  even  thouo^h  she 
held  possession  of  the  Egyptian  quarries  for  cen- 
turies. Paris  and  London  have  each  taken  an  Obe- 
lisk which  neither  felt  inclined  to  produce  by  its 
own  honest  toil.  And  of  course  America  was 
not  going  to  be  left  behind  in  this  Obelisk-grab- 
ing;  the  result  is  we  see  one  of  these  hoary 
Egyptian  exiles  lonely  and  ghost-like  pointing 
ominously  heavenward  in  Central  Park  at  New 
York.  Though  such  spoliation  is  to  be  deplored, 
still  we  are  far  from  thinking  that  it  sprang 
merely  from  greed  or  whim  or  curiosity.     The 


1 12        ARCHITECTURE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST. 

Egyptian  Obelisk  tells  something  to  modern 
nations,  for  which  they  have  themselves  no  utter- 
ance. It  stirs  an  emotion,  a  far-off  presentiment 
which  only  the  land  of  the  Nile  did  and  could 
embody.  Better  than  any  speech  it  leads  the 
modern  man  back  to  an  ancestral  consciousness 
from  which  his  own  is  derived,  to  a  remote  civi- 
lization of  which  he  is  the  last  descendant.  It 
is  one  of  the  significant  facts  of  our  19th  Cen- 
tury that  Europe  has  gone  back  to  Egypt  and 
sought  to  recover  it  by  digging  up  its  old  ruins 
and  interpreting  them  anew.  With  determina- 
tion, yea  with  a  kind  of  desperation  has  this  act 
been  done  as  if  something  very  important  de- 
pended upon  its  doing.  This  evolutionary  Cen- 
tury—  the  nineteenth  —  must  indeed  know  its 
own  origin,  which  means  that  man  is  to  know 
himself  more  completely  than  ever  before. 

The  Obelisk  is  usually  divided  into  three  parts, 
the  base,  the  shaft,  and  pointed  cap  on  the  top, 
called  the  pyramidion  or  little  pyramid.  The 
base  is  separate,  rectilineal,  not  very  different  in 
outline  from  the  lower  part  of  the  Obelisk  to 
which  it  is  joined,  and  of  far  less  significance 
than  the  base  of  a  Greek  column.  The  shaft 
with  its  pyramidion  is  a  monolith,  it  is  not 
built  up  stone  by  stone,  it  has  no  division  within 
itself,  it  is  a  whole  given  by  nature  and  must  be 
raised  up  to  its  vertical  position.  No  part  seems 
to  rest  on  another  part;  there  is  the  slant,  but  it 


THE  COLUMN .  113 

approaches  the  perpendicular,  till  in  the  pyra- 
midion  the  shaft  breaks  its  straight  lines  and 
moves  to  a  point.  The  Obelisk  is  naturally  as 
naked  as  the  Pyramid  though  usually  covered 
with  hieroglyphics;  no  mouldings,  no  ornament, 
simply  the  smooth  surface  is  visible;  it  is  no 
Enclosure,  but  is  solid  inside  like  a  column ;  nor 
has  it  any  structural  use.  Obelisks  were  usually 
in  Egypt  placed  before  the  door  of  the  temple 
in  pairs,  one  on  each  side  of  the  passage.  Thus 
they  suggest  the  entrance  with  its  two  upright 
pillars,  but  there  is  no  cross-piece  above.  Still 
they  remain  separate,  not  coupled  through  each 
other,  quite  solitary.  They  indicate,  however,  an 
opening  in  contrast  to  the  closed  character  of 
the  Pyramid.  Europe  erects  the  Obelisk  singly, 
whereby  its  meaning  and  impression  are  some- 
what changed.  Before  the  church  of  St.  John 
Lateran,  in  Rome,  stands  the  highest  known 
Obelisk,  torn  from  its  Egyptian  mate  with 
which  it  once  kept  guard  in  front  of  the  Pylon 
at  Karnak.  It  is  said  to  be  105  feet  in  height, 
not  including  the  base,  though  the  average 
altitude  of  the  large  Obelisks  runs  from 
50  to  80  feet.  They  were  mostly  taken 
from  the  granite  quarries  of  Syene  near 
modern  Assuan,  where  one  may  still  see  an 
Obelisk  finished  partially  on  three  sides  while 
the  fourth  side  is  not  yet  detached  from  the 
native  rock.     Something  interrupted  its  comple- 

8 


1 14        AB OHITE  CTUBE  —  CHAP TEB  FIRS  T. 

tion,  some  conqueror  possibly,  for  only  independ- 
ent Egypt  seems  to  have  made  the  Great  Obelisk 
as  an  expression  of  itself.  There  it  lies  ninety- 
two  feet  long,  stopped  forever  in  the  act  of  taking 
shape  from  the  granite,  and  suggesting  that  the 
Egyptian  chapter  of  the  World's  History  is  con- 
cluded. 

There  has  been  a  great  difference  of  opinion 
about  the  meaning  of  the  Obelisk  as  well  as  about 
its  artistic  worth.  It  has  been  supposed  to  repre- 
sent the  sun  or  a  sunbeam,  and  esthetically  to 
produce  a  sense  of  overwhelming  monotony. 
Such  views  need  not  detain  us.  The  Obelisk  has 
even  less  utility  than  a  Pyramid  which  is  at  least 
a  tomb,  and  it  refuses  to  give  any  response  to  the 
question:  Of  what  use  art  thou?  The  Obelisk 
had  to  be  in  the  course  of  Egypt's  architectural 
evolution ;  the  nation  willed  it,  and  so  kept  mak- 
ing these  shapes  for  a  thousand  years  at  least, 
with  an  incalculable  outlay  of  effort.  Can  we 
to-day  throw  ourselves  back  into  that  national 
,  consciousness,  live  with  it  and  labor  with  it  in 
making  an  Obelisk?  Very  difficult  is  such  an 
attempt  now,  though  the  demand  for  an  inner 
unfolding  is  loud  on  many  sides.  To  know  rightly 
the  Obelisk  we  must  evolve  into  it  along  with  the 
old  Egyptians,  construct  it  sympathetically  and 
then  evolve  out  of  it,  so  that  we  can  look  back  at 
it  and  see  its  place. 

Architeetually  the  Obelisk  has  the  ascending, 


TEE  COLUMN.  115 

upbearing  movement,  in  contrast  with  the 
Pyramid  which  so  decidedly  bears  downward. 
As  a  monolith,  it  has  the  same  significance,  carry- 
ing the  eye  upward  without  a  break.  In  form  it 
supports  a  pyramidion  above ;  its  nature  is,  there- 
fore, pyramid-supporting,  as  the  column  supports 
the  tie-beam.  Its  slight  taper  as  well  as  slender 
shape  compared  to  the  Pyramid  seems  to  defy  grav- 
ity and  causes  it  to  mount  aloft.  Though  so  plainly 
derived  from  the  Pyramid,  it  is  the  counteraction 
of  the  latter's  oppressive  descent  earthward; 
it  is  a  pyramidal  protest  against  the  Pyramid, 
whose  overwhelming  domination  it  rises  against. 
Thus  is  hinted  the  inner  change  and  development 
from  Pyramid-building  Egypt  to  Obelisk-making 
Egypt,  from  the  Fourth  to  the  Twelfth  Dynasty. 

From  this  point  of  view  the  Obelisk  has  had 
numerous  descendants  of  many  different  shapes. 
The  spire,  the  dome,  the  turret,  the  minaret 
show  the  same  up-bearing  tendency,  while  the 
body  of  the  building  is  more  massive  and  down- 
bearing.  Thus  the  student  of  comparative 
Architecture  will  note  the  incipient  stage  of  the 
structural  dualism  which  will  later  become  so 
explicit  and  pronounced  in  European  construc- 
tion. 

3.  The  Mammeisi.  In  this  period  also  we  are 
inclined  to  place  the  beginning  of  the  columnar 
Enclosure  in  the  form  of  the  peristyle.  The  row 
of  columns  engirdling  the  temple   is  so  distinct- 


116        ABCHITECTUBE  ~  CHAPTER  FTBST. 

ively  Greek  that  the  appearance  of  such  a  struc- 
ture in  ancient  or  proto-historic  Egypt  is  at  first 
received  with  incredulity,  yea  with  a  sort  of 
inner  protest,  as  if  the  Hellenic  race  was  about 
to  be  deprived  of  all  its  constructive  originality. 
We  allude  to  those  small  temples  or  Enclosures 
known  since  the  time  of  Champollion  under  the 
name  of  Mammeisi  (Coptic,  a  birth-place) .  The 
general  fact  about  them  is  that  they  have  a  Peri- 
style. Hitherto  we  have  seen  the  Column  de- 
veloping inside  the  temple,  and  even  getting  to 
the  front  entrance  at  Beni-Hassan,  but  never 
reaching  the  outside  in  supporting  a  ceiling  or 
roof.  The  Obelisk  is  indeed  outside  but  it  does 
not  support  anything  but  itself,  though  standing 
often  in  pairs. 

But  now  comes  the  surprising  fact.  The 
French  savants  of  the  Expedition  to  Egypt  discov- 
ered at  Elephantine,  a  little  island  in  the  Nile 
toward  the  edge  of  Upper  Egypt,  a  small  temple 
which  they  called  Typhonium,  from  the  God 
Typhon,  whose  supposed  image  they  found  in  it. 
This  grotesque  image,  however,  is  now  recognized 
to  be  that  of  Bes,  the  deity  presiding  over 
woman's  toilet.  The  columns  were  placed  out- 
side in  the  form  of  a  rectangular  peristyle  sur- 
rounding a  walled  chamber  like  the  cella  of  the 
Greek  temple,  whose  prototype  is  here  not  only 
suggested  but  distinctly  developed. 

But  what  was  the  period  of  this  astonishing 


TEE  COLUMN.  117 

monument?  It  is  ascribed  to  the  time  of  Amen- 
Hotep  III.  of  the  18th  Dynasty  who  reigned  at  least 
1500  years  B.C.,  hence  centuries  before  the  Trojan 
War  or  the  earliest  notices  of  Greece.  Still  this 
Dynasty  belonged  to  the  third  and  last  period  of 
independent  or  proto-historic  Egypt,  when  the 
land  of  the  Nile  put  forth  its  last  bloom  of  origi- 
nality, developing  particularly  the  forms  trans- 
mitted from  the  second  and  most  creative  period 
of  its  history.  We  see  that  already  the  Mam- 
meisi  was  quite  fully  unfolded  in  the  Eighteenth 
Dynasty,  and  we  may  well  suppose  that  the  evo- 
lution of  it  began  already  in  the  Twelfth  Dynasty 
alongside  of  the  proto-Doric  column  and  other 
germinal  forms  for  which  the  second  period  is 
specially  distinguished. 

The  peristylar  principle,  however,  is  not  yet 
entirely  evolved  in  the  Mammeisi,  otherwise  it 
would  be  wholly  Greek.  The  intercolumnar 
spaces  are  not  fully  open,  but  are  occupied  by  a 
low  wall  or  screen  which  still  excludes  the  out- 
side world  in  Egyptian  fashion.  Then  the  shape 
of  the  columns  has  to  undergo  a  good  deal  of 
development.  Still  we  have  here  the  twofold 
characteristic  which  is  so  prominent  in  the  Greek 
temple,  the  inner  cella  and  outer  encompassing 
colonnade.  The  rectangular  base,  oblong  and  on 
an  elevated  platform  approached  by  a  flight  of 
steps,  is  also  present,  but  the  Egyptian  slant  does 
not  appear. 


118        ABCHITEGTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIB8T. 

So  we  find  again  in  Egypt  the  germ  which 
-Greece  is  to  unfold.  And  the  question  springs 
up :  Why  should  the  Greek  take  just  this  form 
and  develop  it,  omitting  others  far  more  promi- 
nent in  Egypt?  We  can  at  least  say  that  this 
little  proto-historic  Egyptian  Temple  expresses 
the  Greek  spirit  bursting  out  of  its  Oriental  bud, 
and  begins  to  suggest  the  coming  architecture  of 
Europe.  This  does  not  mean  that  there  was 
necessarily  a  direct  conscious  selection  of  the 
Mammeisi  as  the  type  of  a  new  Architecture  on 
the  part  of  Greek  architects,  though  they  in 
later  times  must  have  often  visited,  seen  and 
studied  these  Egyptian  monuments.  At  any 
rate  the  building  spirit  of  the  ages  seized  upon 
the  form  of  this  little  temple  in  far-off  Elephan- 
tine, though  its  counterpart  must  have  been 
found  in  the  Delta  also,  and  made  it  the  means 
of  pre-figuring  the  new  constructive  thought  of 
Architecture.  It  is  at  such  links  of  transition 
that  we  catch  a  glimpse  of  the  universal  archi- 
tectonic soul  realizing  itself  in  a  line  of  epoch- 
making  edifices  from  old  Egypt  down  to  the 
present. 

We  must  not  fail  to  note  the  difficulties  hover- 
ing about  the  Mammeisi.  The  ancient  structure 
at  Elephantine,  some  years  after  it  was  described, 
measured  and  drawn  by  the  French  savants, 
was  torn  down  at  the  command  of  a  high  Egyp- 
tian official,  who  wished  to  use  its  materials  for 


THE  COLUMN,  119 

building  his  palace.  That  is  a  sample  of  how 
the  monuments  of  Egypt  have  been  treated  by 
foreign  conquerors  for  thousands  of  years.  Thus 
the  oldest  specimen  of  this  sort  of  temple  has 
disappeared,  and  cannot  be  subjected  to  the  test 
of  modern  investigation.  The  result  is  that  its 
early  date  has  been  doubted,  and  it  has  been  as- 
signed to  the  Ptolomies,  who  are  known  to  have 
built  such  temples  and  to  have  introduced  Greek 
architectural  forms  into  Egypt.  Still  the  antiq- 
uity of  the  Mammeisi  is  accepted  by  leading 
Egyptologists  who  usually  assign  it  simply  to  the 
18th  dynasty  without  mentioning  any  earlier 
form. 


1^0        ABCSITECTUBE  —  GHAPTEB  FIBST. 


C.  The  Temple. 

The  complete  development  of  the  Temple,  as 
distinct  from  the  Pyramid  and  the  Column,  be- 
longs to  the  Third  Period  of  that  Egypt  which 
we  have  called  proto-historic.  As  the  obscuration 
between  the  First  and  Secood  Periods  indicates  a 
foreign  conquest  whose  proofs  have  but  recently 
come  to  light,  so  the  obscuration  between  the 
Second  and  Third  Period  has  long  been  known  as 
the  time  of  the  Hyksos,  alien  rulers  over  Egypt, 
whose  expulsion  rendered  possible  the  third  and 
last  renascence  of  Egyptian  national  spirit.  Art 
will  again  revive  and  particularly  Architecture, 
which  will  build  at  the  Capital  Thebes  the  great 
typical  structure  of  the  Period,  the  Temple. 

To  be  sure  we  have  seen  temples  in  Egypt 
from  the  beginning,  through  all  the  Periods  of  her 
history.  Belonging  to  the  Pyramid  was  a  small 
temple  so-called  which,  however,  now  evolves  into 
the  first  place  in  size  and  importance.  But  the 
new  edifice  could  not  arise  except  through  the 
development  of  the  Column,  which  is  to  uphold 
the  roof  above  ground.  The  hypostylar  princi- 
ple, or  the  columnar  support  of  the  huge  blocks 
forming  the  ceiling  now  appears  in  all  its  colos- 
sality.  The  Columns  of  Beni-Hassan  we  may 
conceive  to  rise  out  of  their  subterranean  abode 


THE  TEMPLE.  121 

to  the  surface  of  the  earth,  with  their  own 
covering  over  them  and  inside  their  own  walls. 
I.  Thus  after  the  Pyramid  had  arisen,  culmi- 
nated and  ceased  to  be,  there  arises  the  next 
great  architectural  structure  of  Egypt,  which  we 
shall  call  the  Temple.  It  too  had  a  long  time  of 
evolution,  but  its  bloom  can  still  be  seen  at 
Thebes,  particularly  in  the  ruins  of  Karnak  and' 
Luxor.  The  Egyptian  Temple  at  its  best  fails 
not  to  suggest  its  origin  far  back  in  the  rock- 
tomb  of  which  we  may  deem  it  the  final  evolution 
after  the  Pyramid.  Its  interior  leads  within 
from  an  open  entrance,  through  a  series  of  grada- 
tions becoming  narrower  and  more  mysterious,  to 
the  sanctuary  where  the  final  rite  is  performed  by 
the  living  king  who  is  regarded  as  the  divine 
representative  or  indeed  as  quite  one  with  the  God 
Himself.  But  the  Temple  in  this  new  sense  is 
not  the  abode  of  the  dead,  and  has  no  sarcopha- 
gus. Thus  it  has  freed  itself  of  that  immediate 
sepulchral  purpose  which  still  clung  to  the  Pyra- 
mid and  even  to  the  Column.  The  Temple  has 
become  the  dwelling-place  of  the  God,  and  the 
most  important  building  of  the  age.  The 
dead  king  is  no  longer  buried  in  it,  but  has 
his  own  tomb  apart,  still  magnificent  and 
revered.  But  when  he  dies  now,  he  is  not 
the  God,  or  one  with  God  exactly.  Thus 
we  may  consider  that  the  Pyramid  separates 
into  two  parts.  Tomb  and  Temple,  each  ®f  which 


122        ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIBST. 

has  come  to  have  its  own  distinct  building  which 
shows  also  a  new  development  in  religion.  And 
not  only  this,  but  each  is  assigned  to  a  separate 
locality :  the  Temple  in  the  present  case  is  built 
on  the  right  bank  of  the  Nile,  while  the  Tomb 
with  its  accompanying  funerary  temple  or  chapel 
is  still  kept  on  the  left  bank  of  the  Nile  opposite 
to  the  city,  near  by  the  Libyan  desert.  These 
funerary  temples  have  received  their  own  name 
(Memnonia)  and  are  on  a  line  with  the  Pyramids 
both  in  place  and  in  derivation .  It  is  also  signifi- 
cant of  the  new  epoch  that  Thebes,  its  city,  is 
built  on  the  right  bank  of  the  Nile,  while  Mem- 
phis, the  old  city  of  the  Pyramids,  was  on  the 
left. 

Such  is  the  separation  between  Tomb  and 
Temple  which  has  taken  place  along  with  the 
movement  of  Egyptian  civilization.  This  un- 
doubtedly passed  up  the  Nile,  from  L»wer  to 
Upper  Egypt,  changing  likewise  the  center  of 
political  power,  and  constituting  respectively  the 
Memphite  and  Theban  periods.  The  Pyramid- 
builders  of  the  Fourth  Dynasty  ruled  over  a 
united  Egypt  whose  boundaries  had  extended  from 
the  Delta  up  the  Nile.  There  succeeded  a  time 
of  subjection, disintegration  and  disunion,  with 
many  fluctuations.  Then  came  the  Second  Pe- 
riod, after  which  followed  the  blow  given  to 
Egypt  by  the  domination  of  the  Hyksos,  or 
shepherd  kings,  as  the  word  is  usually  translated. 


THE   TEMPLE.  123 

They  were  Seijiites,  chiefly  Arabians;  they  con- 
quered Lower  Egypt  and  ruled  five  hundred  years 
(from  about  2200  B.  C.  to  1700  B.  C).  Thus 
Egypt  was  again  divided  into  two  parts  and 
possibly  more. 

II.  The  Hyksos  were  driven  out  by  tne  Eight- 
eenth Dynasty  whose  kings  ever  afterwards  bore 
the  name  of  Deliverers,  having  united  Egypt 
once  more  under  its  native  rulers.  This  was  a 
period  of  national  revival  in  the  highest  degree, 
and  its  center  was  Thebes.  The  Egyptian  nation 
burst  out  of  its  bonds  and  became  a  great  con- 
queror ;  being  no  longer  satisfied  with  the  narrow 
limits  of  the  Nile,  it  subjugated  Asia  as  far  as  the 
Tigris  to  the  East,  and  Ethiopia  to  the  South. 
Particularly  distinguished  was  the  career  of  Sesos- 
tris  (often  identified  withEameses  II,  or  Sestura 
of  this  dynasty,  as  well  as  with  Osirtasen  I,  of  the 
Twelfth  Dynasty).  Now  Thebes  with  its  colossal 
monuments  on  both  sides  of  the  river  is  the  archi- 
tectural expression  of  the  epoch.  Thus  after 
many  hundred  years  of  national  eclipse  the  people 
of  the  Nile  have  a  third  grand  renewal  and  renas- 
cence, and  begin  to  build  works  which  in  mag- 
nitude show  an  ambitious  rivalry  with  the 
Pyramids. 

Egypt  again  reveals  itself  to  be  the  greatest 
builder  among  nations;  the  old  architectonic 
Spirit  is  the  same,  though  it  takes  a  new  form, 
as    already   indicated.     But   this   Third  Period 


124        ABC  HITEC  TUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIB  ST. 

will  likewise  have  its  rise,  bloom  and  decay; 
^Egjpt  will  pass  into  decline  and  final  subjuga- 
tion, this  time  permanently.  The  Third  Period 
completes  the  Egyptian  cycle. 

A  new  Architecture,  therefore,  appears  in 
Thebes,  and  with  it  a  new  God.  The  old  God 
of  Memphis  has  been  quite  dethroned  and  put 
into  the  background.  Ammon-Ra,  son  of  the 
primordial  Memphitic  God  Ptah,  was  previously 
the  Theban  local  divinity ;  but  with  the  rise  of 
his  city  he  has  risen  to  being  the  mighty  mon- 
arch over  all  the  Gods,  having  displaced  his 
father,  as  Zeus  did  Cronus  in  the  Greek  Pan- 
theon. The  home  of  this  new  God,  the  divine 
fountain  of  the  new  epoch,  had  to  be  built  in  a 
style  of  magnificence  challenging  the  Pyramids 
at  Memphis  in  order  to  be  his  worthy  dwelling- 
place.  Not  one,  but  two  vast  temples  are  dedi- 
cated to  Ammon  at  Thebes,  known  as  Karnak 
and  Luxor,  and  connected  by  an  avenue  more 
than  a  mile  in  length,  with  a  row  of  sphinxes  on 
each  side.  Such  a  dual  Temple  to  the  one  God 
probably  had  its  meaning  for  the  old  Egyptian. 
But  we  must  not  forget  that  this  great  typical 
Temple  was  built  by  addition  to  addition  in  suc- 
cessive ages,  even  down  to  the  Ptolomies,  who 
furnished  the  last  accretion  in  two  huge  pylons. 

III.  In  regarding  the  evolution  from  the  Pyra- 
mid to  the  Temple,  we  may  first  look  at  the 
enclosing  principle  which  is  the  primal   fact  of 


THE  TEMPLE.  125 

Architecture.  The  wall  of  the  Pyramid  was 
barely  differentiated,  the  room  enclosed  being 
almost  nothing  in  comparison  with  the  solid  ma- 
sonry. But  in  the  Temple  we  see  the  wall  dis- 
tinct, by  itself,  completely  separated.  Indeed 
there  were  two  walls  to  the  Egyptian  Temple  and 
in  parts  of  it  sometimes  more.  First  was  the 
outer  wall  enclosing  the  sacred  precinct  or 
temenos;  inside  of  this  with  considerable  space 
between,  was  built  the  Temple  proper  having  its 
special  walls  and  covering  above. 

It  is  true  that  these  walls  were  enormously 
thick,  as  if  betraying  or  suggesting  their  origin 
from  the  Pyramid.  At  Karnak  the  outer  wall, 
made  of  crude  brick,  was  thirty-three  feet 
through,  and  its  height  must  have  been  fully  as 
great.  With  the  most  decided  emphasis  the 
world  was  excluded.  Still  the  space  enclosed 
was  far  larger  than  that  occupied  by  the  wall, 
wherein  lay  a  strong  contrast  with  the  Pyramid. 
At  least  we  can  now  say  that  the  wall  is  space- 
enclosing,  even  if  it  is  doubled. 

The  roof  also  appears  as  separate  in  the  Tem- 
ple, and  requiring  its  own  special  support.  In 
the  Pyramid  there  is  no  such  separation,  the  roof 
and  the  wall  are  one. 

IV .  The  Temple  will  also  have  its  portal  and 
its  openings  through  which  an  entrance  can  bo 
made  into  the  interior.  We  recollect  that  the 
Pyramid   sought  to  close  every  connection  with 


126         ABCHITECTURE  —  GHAPTEB  FIRST. 

the  outer  world,  putting  often  into  its  door- 
way a  carefully  fitted  stone  weighing  many  tons. 
It  is  still  a  problem  how  such  a  huge  stopper 
could  be  lifted  out,  if  indeed  it  ever  was.  The 
exclusion  of  the  Pyramid  was  complete,  but  the 
Temple  let  in  not  all  or  many,  but  a  few  —  royalty, 
the  priests  and  the  initiates.  Yet  there  was  a 
gradation  in  these  very  few,  perhaps  only  one 
could  reach  the  Holy  of  Holies. 

We  may  say  therefore  that  the  Temple  begins 
to  break  up  Egyptian  exclusiveness ;  it  opens  and 
keeps  open  the  Pyramid.  Now  this  fact  is  sur- 
prisingly emphasized  by  the  Egyptian  architect. 
On  each  side  of  the  portal  stood  a  thick  mass  of 
material  rising  considerably  above  the  regular 
wall  as  well  as  above  the  portal.  These  two 
imposing  structures  flanking  the  entrance  of 
the  Temple  are  the  famous  ^pylons,  which  so 
strongly  impress  the  traveler  in  Egypt  and  which 
constitute  one  of  the  most  distinctive  features  of 
the  Egyptian  edifice.  It  is  always  asked:  Why 
just  these  shapes  here?  Of  direct  utility  there  is 
none.  Undoubtedly  they  emphasize  the  opening 
of  the  wall  and  the  place  of  the  entrance. 
Whence  came  they?  To  our  mind,  from  the 
Pyramid.  They  are  slanting,  they  are  usually  of 
enormous  size  and  have  a  pyramidal  look,  but 
they  are  not  carried  up  to  a  point,  and  tjiey  are 
rounded  off  at  the  top  with  a  cornice.  These 
pylons,  as  we  look  at  them,  show  the  piercing 


THE  TEMPLE.  127 

of  the  Pyramid,  whose  side  must  now  become 
a  wall  with  an  entrance,  and  be  transformed 
into  a  part  of  a  Temple.  Not  the  outside  en- 
trance alone  has  a  pylon ;  it  is  repeated  inside 
with  every  important  opening.  In  this  Temple 
of  Karnak  six  such  pylons  have  been  counted. 

Here  are  also  to  be  mentioned  the  two  Obe- 
lisks, standing  usually  in  front  of  the  two  pylons 
of  the  main  fagade,  and  apparently  forming  a 
kind  of  introduction  to  the  chief  entrance.  Thus 
the  opening  seems  to  be  celebrated  by  an  extra- 
ordinary display  of  architectural  forms. 

V.  If  we  look  at  the  Egyptian  Temple  as  a 
whole,  we  observe  that  it  has  a  tendency  to  de- 
crease in  height  from  front  to  rear,  or  to  slant 
downwards  toward  the  end.  The  same  tendency 
may  be  noted  in  the  interior,  which  seems  to  con- 
centrate more  and  more  from  the  portal  till  the 
sanctuary  is  reached  in  a  kind  of  point.  Thus  the 
Temple  is  a  species  of  prostrate  Pyramid,  whose 
base  is  suggested  in  the  strong  and  high  pylons 
at  the  entrance.  The  lofty,  almost  solid  Pyramid 
is  thrown  down  upon  the  earth,  and  is  pierced 
with  passages ;  its  inside  mass  is  transformed  into 
a  series  of  rooms  continuing  toward  the  apex. 
From  this  point  of  view  we  may  consider  the 
Pyramid  to  be  hollowed  out  and  changed  into  a 
real  Enclosure,  with  wall  and  ceiling  upborne  by 
supporting  columns. 

The  Temple  is  composed  of  several  separate 


128        ABCHITECTUBE— CHAPTER  FIRST. 

buildings,  each  of  which  has  a  portal  with  its 
own  pylons.  Thus  it  has  a  crawling  worm-like 
appearance,  with  six  or  seven  joints  sometimes, 
or  it  may  be  with  three  or  four.  Hence  it  seems 
always  an  unfinished  and  indeed  unfiniehable 
structure,  quite  the  opposite  of  the  Greek  Tem- 
ple in  this  regard.  We  read  of  additions  contin- 
ually made  to  the  great  Egyptian  Temples  by 
successive  monarchs.  Such  an  architectural 
form  expresses  the  Egyptian  striving  for  the 
Beyond,  the  mortal  reaching  out  for  the  immor- 
tal. And  internally  the  movement  of  the  Tem- 
ple was  from  daylight  to  darkness,  suggesting 
the  evanishment  of  the  Sun,  of  the  Nile,  of 
Osiris,  of  man  himself  passing  from  the  sensible 
to  the  supersensible.  The  movement  of  Greek 
spirit  was  quite  the  other  way,  from  within  out- 
wards into  the  world  of  sense  which  its  function 
was  to  transform. 

These  various  buildings  of  the  total  Egyptian 
Temple  have  received  their  special  names.  The 
first  is  full  of  columns  and  is  fairly  well  lighted, 
and  is  known  as  the  Vestibule  or  Hypostyle 
Hall.  Then  comes  the  Temple  proper  (naos), 
then  the  Sanctuary  (secos).  These  are  the  three 
main  structures,  but  to  these  often  others  are 
added,  not  only  on  the  axial  line,  but  even  at 
right  angles  to  it  (  see  the  plan  of  the  Temple  of 
Karnak).  Another  peculiarity  is  that  the  Egyp- 
tian  did    not  keep  this  axial  line  straight,  but 


THE  TEMPLE.  129 

deflected  it  so  that  the  outline  of  the  Temple 
seems  bent  or  broken.  This  may  be  ascribed  to 
that  Egyptian  peculiarity  of  shunning  the  rect- 
angular when  it  is  getting  too  pronounced,  and 
of  making  a  slant  even  sidewards. 

VI.  We  have  already  felt  the  Egyptian's  love 
of  the  slanting  line,  a  love  which  he  never  for- 
sakes^  as  long  as  his  nation  lives  and  builds. 
Egypt  clings  to  the  rectilineal,  but  avoids  the 
rectangular.  The  Pyramid,  the  Pylon,  the  Tem- 
ple, the  Obelisk,  show  the  Egyptian  slant. 
Herein  again  lies  a  sharp  distinction  from  the 
Greek  who  loved  the  rectangular,  and  ran  the 
most  of  his  architectural  lines  at  right  angles  to 
one  another. 

Again  the  question  comes  up :  What  lay  in  the 
character  of  these  two  peoples,  impelling  each  of 
them  t«  make  such  a  different  selection?  To  be 
sure  we  can  say  that  it  was  a  mere  accident,  or 
possibly  the  whim  of  some  architect  or  monarch 
whom  everybody  afterwards  followed  by  sheer 
force  of  imitation.  Or  we  may  hold  that  it  was 
so  because  it  was,  and  there  was  the  end  of  it ; 
that  no  good  comes  of  this  groping  after  the 
inner  threads  of  the  evolution  of  these  architec- 
tural forms.  The  only  way  is  to  seize  them  as 
they  bubble  up  on  the  surface  of  Time,  and  stop 
burro winoj  and  excavating^  in  the  dark  under- 
world  for  grounds  of  connection  between  appear- 
ances here  above  in  the  sunlight.     Thus  we  have 

9 


130       AttCmTECTtjnE  —  OHA-PTEB  FlUSf. 

indeed  gotten  rid  of  the  problem,  and  therewith 
of  Architecture  itself  as  an  expresion  of  a  nation 
or  of  an  age. 

What  reason,  then,  may  be  given  for  this 
difference  of  choice  between  Greek  and  Egyp- 
tian? There  is  but  one  right  angle  in  the  uni- 
verse, it  is  the  universal  angle ;  to  whatever  ex- 
tent you  may  prolong  or  shorten  its  sides,' it  is 
the  one  right  angle.  But  there  are  millions  of 
acute  and  obtuse  angles,  equal  numerically  to 
the  infinite  divisibility  of  space.  And  they  are 
all  measured,  determined,  and  defined  by  the 
right  angle,  which  is  thus  their  fixed  law,  their 
standard,  their  unchanging  principle.  Now  the 
Egyptian  Temple  we  have  seen  to  be  ever 
changeful,  yet  never  finished;  while  the  G^ek 
Temple  we  shall  find  to  be  a  complete  rounded-off 
totality,  to  which  nothing  can  well  be  added. 
The  Egyptian  is  an  accretion  made  up  of  layer 
after  layer,  but  the  Greek  Temple  is  organic, 
determined  in  every  member  from  within  acord- 
ing  to  its  modulus,  and  definitely  brought  to  a 
conclusion.  That  slanting  Egyptian  line  could 
be  slanted  indefinitely  and  still  be  slanting;  it 
had  no  central  unity  for  its  variations  like  the 
right  angle.  The  Greek  Temple  shows  that  the 
rule  of  Law  has  begun.  Law  as  an  inner  control- 
ling principle  both  in  the  man  and  in  the  edifice. 
The  Egyptian  had  Law  too,  but  it  was  relatively 


THE  TEMPLE.  131 

external,  and  imposed  from  without,  tience  for- 
mally a  caprice  of  the  monarch. 

VI.  Such  are  the  leading  thoughts  which 
spring  up  in  the  mind  at  the  contemplation  of 
the  Egyptian  Temple.  It  is  the  last  mighty  prod- 
uct of  proto-historic  Egypt,  and  is  the  end  of  a 
great  architectural  evolution  from  the  Pyramid 
through  the  Column.  The  stages  of  this  evolu- 
tion as  fully  developed  in  the  Temple  we  may 
state  as  follows  : — 

1.  Wall ^  Roof  ^  and  Column.  These  are  com- 
pletely differentiated  in  the  Temple,  and  each 
appears  in  its  own  separate  place  and  function. 
The  typical  Enclosure  for  all  future  Architecture 
has  been  evolved  with  its  three  fundamental  ele- 
ments, as  just  given.  We  here  speak  of  great 
Architecture,  or  rather  of  Architecture  as  an 
Art,  and  not  of  holes  and  huts  and  tents  which 
the  primitive  man  constructs  in  various  ways. 
Self-conscious  associated  man  has  built  a  worthy 
home  of  the  Spirit  which  associates  him,  which 
makes  the  people  of  the  Nile  Valley  into  a  nation. 
Still  the  Egyptian  Temple  puts  an  exclusive  stress 
upon  the  interior,  though  it  lets  some  people 
inside. 

2.  The  Entrance.  This  also  marks  a  great 
advance  over  the  Pyramid  and  likewise  overBeni- 
Hassan,  whose  Entrance  is  to  a  subterranean 
room.  But  now  the  whole  Entrance  is  made  by 
man,  not  given  even  partially  by  nature,  except  the 


132        ARCIIITECTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIRST. 

material,  and  the  entire  Temple  is  above  ground, 
Hborn  out  of  its  earthy  womb,  evolved  into  its 
completed  Egyptian  shape.  The  Entrance  means 
that  there  is  an  outside  as  well  as  an  inside. 

3.  The  Slant.  The  Temple  in  its  way  pre- 
serves the  slant,  though  the  rectangular  shape 
has  become  mere  frequent  and  more  explicit  in 
the  Temple  than  in  the  Pyramid.  The  oblong 
quadrangle  is  often  employed  in  the  gcound-plan 
of  Temples  though  the  wall  is  slanting. 

Putting  together  these  three  stages  of  Egyptian 
Architecture — the  Pyramid,  the  Column,  and 
the  Temple, — we  see  what  may  be  called  the 
archetypal  movement  of  all  coming  great  con- 
struction. The  Temple  of  Egypt,  itself  the  prod- 
uct of  a  long  evolution,  is  the  primordial  form 
of  the  leading  future  Temples  and  Churches  and 
also  Mosques.  The  round  shape  is  but  a  par- 
tial exception  which  is  absorbed  into  the  same 
general  movement. 

Observations.  —  In  the  foregoing  account 
Egypt  is  taken  as  the  starting-point  of  civilized 
man,  and  even  as  the  place  where  the  human 
being  first  became  self-conscious.  It  should  be 
stated,  however,  that  the  more  common  view  is 
that  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  obtained  its  art  and 
culture  from  abroad.  But  to  find  out  who  were 
the  early  people  bringing  such  wonderful  gifts  is 
the  great  problem. 

1.  The  old  theory  was  that  Egypt's  civilization 


THE  TEMPLE,  133 

was  African,  came  down  the  Nile,  specially  from 
Meroe.  A  later  theory  held  that  it  was  brought 
from  Asia,  say  from  the  cities  of  the  Valley  of 
the  Euphrates.  At  present  there  are  writers  who 
claim  that  it  was  carried  across  the  Mediterranean 
from  Europe,  thus  reversing  the  race's  movement 
from  East  to  West.  Perhaps  the  latest  notion 
on  this  subject  is  that  Egypt  received  her  earliest 
spiritual  impulse  from  peoples  living  in  Central 
Africa  around  the  great  lakes  at  the  head  waters 
of  the  Nile.  This  is  a  return  to  the  old  idea  that 
Egypt's  civilization  must  have  flowed  directly 
down  its  great  river. 

All  of  these  theories  are  to  be  rejected,  as  un- 
supported by  fact  and  contrary  to  the  supreme 
probability  of  the  case.  Nowhere  on  the  globe 
is  nature  as  friendly  to  the  primal  development  of 
the  human  being  as  in  the  Nile  Valley.  Egypt 
was  not  brought  to  Egypt  from  Africa,  Asia  or 
Europe ;  it  unfolded  itself  on  its  own  ground, 
which  was  the  most  favorable  spet  for  such  an 
evolution  on  the  globe.  This  is  not  saying  that 
no  foreign  peoples  ever  entered  Egypt  and  be- 
came mingled  with  its  native  stock.  On  the 
contrary  the  Second  and  Third  Periods  —  both 
of  them  great  revivals  of  Egyptian  nationality 
and  art  —  were  probably  produced  by  the  infu- 
sion of  the  new  blood  of  hardy  conquerors  into 
an  old  and  decadent  nation,  causing  it  to  have  a 
new  creative  life,  which  we  may  still  observe  in 


134         ABCHITECTUBE—  CHAPTER  FIBST. 

the  Architecture  of  these  two  Periods.  It  is 
likely  that  the  much-hated  Hyksos  in  this  sense 
were  the  saviors  of  Egypt  and  the  real  source  of 
the  fresh  flowering  of  it  during  the  Eighteenth 
Dynasty. 

The  situation  would  seem  to  require  some 
such  process  with  the  outer  world.  The  Nile 
permits,  indeed  compels  the  Egyptian  to  live  in 
one  narrow  stretch  of  territory ;  he  is  not  migra- 
tory, since  the  River  brings  to  him  his  earth,  he 
does  not  have  to  go  to  it.  He  has  all  the  advan- 
tages of  the  change  of  climate  without  the  change 
of  locality.  Thus  he  lives  the  Nile  life,  is  a  part 
of  its  process,  and  becomes  inseparable  from  it. 
This  natural  situation,  which  is  of  supreme 
importance  in  the  infancy  of  man,  since  the 
River  is  literally  his  nurse,  becomes  a  drawback 
when  he  is  grown  by  undermining  his  self- 
reliance  and  independence.  Hence  we  see  for- 
eigners, chiefly  migratory  peoples  from  Arabia 
and  Libya,  entering  the  Valley  of  the  Nile,  con- 
quering its  inhabitants,  and  mingling  with  their 
blood.  Thus  the  two  elements,  the  migratory 
and  the  stationary,  met,  interfused  in  the  course 
of  centuries,  and  produced  the  oscillations  which 
have  been  observed  in  Egyptian  history  and  art. 

In  this  way  Egypt  digested  the  foreigner  and 
became  a  new  Egypt.  Still  the  kernel  remained 
the  original  Egyptian,  autochthonous,  born  of 
the  Nile.     To  hunt  for  his  beo^inninor  elsewhere 


THE  TEMPLE.  136 

is  vain,  is  in  fact  contradictory,  for  that  begin- 
ning must  have  already  begun  and  hence  de- 
mands in  turn  its  beginning.  Certainly  nothing 
is  explained  about  Egypt  when  we  say  that  its 
civilization  was  brought  to  it  by  another  people, 
when  we  do  not  know  whence  or  how  the  latter 
obtained  their  civilization  or  even  who  they  were. 

2.  Many  centuries  after  the  Third  or  Theban 
Renascence  had  risen  and  vanished,  there  was 
still  another  revival  which  came  to  Egypt  through 
foreign  conquerors,  the  Greeks,  and  under  for- 
eign rulers,  the  Ptolomies.  Once  more  and  for 
the  last  time  the  Egyptians  showed  national  ac- 
tivity along  with  some  artistic  power,  though 
not  by  any  means  so  great  as  in  the  three  previous 
periods.  It  was  rather  the  recovery  and  renewal 
of  the  old  civilization,  religion,  and  art,  than  any 
great  original  step  in  advance.  It  was  imi- 
tation more  than  creation.  Ancient  edifices  fallen 
to  decay  were  rebuilt ;  additions  were  made  to  old 
temples  after  the  Egyptian  manner,  as  we  see  in 
the  case  of  Karnak,  whose  huge  pylons  in  front 
were  a  contribution  of  the  Ptolemaic  time. 
Then  wholly  new  temples  were  built  in  the  an- 
tique style  of  Egypt,  such  as  Edfou  and  Dende- 
rah.  The  reigning  dynasty  sought  to  make  them- 
selves, or  at  least  one  side  of  themselves,  Egyp- 
tian, and  found  a  considerable  response  from  the 
native  population. 

But  another  side  of   the  Ptolomies  remained 


136        ABGHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIB8T. 

Greek,  or  rather  Hellenistic,  and  this  side  also 
was  represented  in  Egypt,  both  by  institutions 
and  architecture.  It  seems  to  have  been  the 
policy  of  the  reigning  House  not  to  disturb  the 
organization  of  the  old  Egyptian  communities, 
but  it  founded  among  the  latter  new  communi- 
ties of  Greeks  after  the  Greek  pattern,  with  the 
corresponding  Greek  edifices.  Of  these  new 
Hellenistic  communities,  altogether  the  greatest 
and  most  important  was  one  whose  establishment 
is  ascribed  to  Alexander  himself,  and  is  called 
after  his  name,  Alexandria,  a  great  city  to  this 
day,  but  anciently  far  greater,  being  the  supreme 
Hellenistic  City. 

Egypt  in  her  time  had  also  had  great  cities, 
Memphis  of  the  First  Period  and  Thebes  of  the 
Second  Period,  with  many  others  of  lesser  fame. 
Butthey  were  Egyptian  cities,  narrow,  nativistic, 
confined  to  the  Nile.  Thus  they  perished  even 
in  antiquity,  through  the  contact  and  conflict 
with  other  peoples,  who  broke  down  and  poured 
over  Egyptian  limits.  The  shock  of  Universal 
History,  whose  great  supporters  were  the  Greeks 
in  that  age,  had  already  begun  to  destroy  the 
ethnic  exclusiveness  of  Egypt  long  before  the 
time  of  Alexander.  It  is  recorded  that  a  troop 
of  Greek  mercenaries  made  an  expedition  up  the 
Nile  as  far  as  Nubia  during  the  reign  of  Psam- 
metichus,  more  than  three  centuries  before  the 
conquest    of  the    country    by    Alexander.      The 


THE  TEMPLE.  137 

same  king  settled  his  Greek  soldiers  in  Egypt 
permanently,  at  the  so-called  Camps,  which  place 
we  may  regard  as  the  first  Greek  community  in 
the  land  of  the  Nile.  A  hundred  years  later 
King  Amasis  undisguisedly  favored  Greeks  and 
Greek  culture,  and  established  a  new  Greek 
town,  Naucratis,  which  has  been  recently  exca- 
vated. It  may  be  truly  said  that  when  Alexan- 
der appeared,  the  walls  of  Egypt  had  been  already 
breached  by  the  Greek;  the  great  conqueror 
entered  in  and  easily  took  possession. 

On  the  other  hand  the  counter  influence,  the 
influence  of  Egypt  over  Hellas,  was  very  great, 
for  it  was  an  old  civilization  teaching  a  new  one, 
the  latter  being  really  its  heir,  even  if  unacknowl- 
edged and  unknown  as  such.  The  Greeks  them- 
selves, in  spite  of  their  hide-bound  autochthonous 
claims,  have  celebrated  both  in  myth  and  in 
history  their  connection  with  Egypt.  During 
the  reign  of  Psammetichus,  if  not  long  before, 
the  Doric  column  began  to  move  from  Beni-Has- 
san  to  Hellas  and  specially  to  Sicily,  where  a 
wholly  new  development  was  awaiting  it,  in  fact 
its  real  fruitage.  Doubtless  the  Ionic  column 
also  unfolded  out  of  Egypt  to  its  full  Greek 
bloom  in  Asia  Minor.  And  these  are  not  the 
only  European  architectural  forms  whose  seeds 
and  early  sproutings  we  must  look  for  in  the  land 
of  the  Nile,  rightly  deemed  the  chief  generative 
source  of  Europe's  civilization. 


138        ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTEB  FIB8T. 

The  universal  and  enduring  city  of  Egypt,  then, 
has  been  Alexandria,  cosmopolitan,  the  meet- 
ing-place of  Orient  and  Occident,  whose  Architec- 
ture showed  both  these  influences,  and  hence  had 
the  character  of  universality.  It  was  this  charac- 
ter which  must  have  strongly  impressed  Julius 
Caesar  when  he  was  in  Egypt  and  saw  its  monu- 
ments. Alexandria  could  and  probably  did  give 
him  the  hint  of  a  universal,  a  truly  imperial  Archi- 
tecture which  could  employ  Greek  forms  with 
Eg3^ptian  colossality.  When  he  went  back  to 
Kome  and  was  its  sovereign  in  fact  if  not  in  name, 
he  began  building  imperial  Rome,  which  work  was 
carried  on  by  Augustus  and  later  Emperors.  But 
this  subject  properly  belongs  to  the  final  period 
of  Classic  Architecture  where  it  will  be  taken  up 
again. 

Just  here,  however,  we  may  put  stress  upon  the 
suggestive  fact  that  Greek  Architecture  having 
risen  to  its  complete  development,  returns  to 
Egypt,  the  home  of  its  primal,  undeveloped 
forms.  The  result  is  the  Valley  of  the  Nile 
shows  Classic  Temples  alongside  of  Egyptian ; 
the  peristylar  colonnade  turned  outward  may  be 
found  not  far  from  the  hypostylar  hall  turned 
inward ;  and  we  can  conceive  the  hoary  ancestor 
of  the  Greek  column  to  be  filled  with  astonish- 
ment and  pride  when  it  sees  its  handsome  de- 
scendant standing  in  its  presence. 

3.   It  is  worth  while  to  note  what  constructive 


THE  TEMPLE.  139 

forms  were  avoided  by  the  Egyptian  architect  — 
avoided,  we  say,  because  they  were  known  and 
sometimes  employed,  though  in  a  casual  and  sub- 
ordinate manner.  ThQ  Arch  has  been  found  in 
Egypt's  First  Period,  and  was  used  occasionally 
down  to  the  conquest  of  Alexander,  but  it  never 
was  adopted  by  the  nation  as  a  structural  element. 
The  Greek  Column  in  its  early  (proto-Doric) 
form  was  distinctly  rejected,  after  being  evolved, 
by  Egyptian  Architecture.  The  vertical  elevation 
of  the  wall  with  its  right  angles  was  shunned  in 
most  cases,  though  not  in  all.  In  later  Archi- 
tecture these  elements  will  become  the  prominent 
ones,  developed,  explicit,  whereas  in  Egypt  they 
are  still  in  an  incipient,  implicit,  potential  stage, 
which  is  the  general  character  of  Oriental  Archi- 
tecture in  relation  to  the  total  evolution  of  this 
Art. 

4.  Very  significant  is  the  persistent  endeavor 
of  the  Nineteenth  Century  to  get  back  to  old 
Egypt,  to  work  it  over  anew  and  to  appropriate 
it  as  a  part  of  the  heritage  of  human  culture. 
Such  a  task  must  be  regarded  as  a  phase  of  our 
evolutionary  epoch,  which  strives  to  discover  the 
original  forms  of  human  development  on  all  its 
lines,  physical  and  spiritual.  Egypt  is  seen  to 
be  the  great  starting-point,  and  imbedded  in  the 
soil  of  the  Nile  are  found  remains  of  an  old  civ- 
ilization not  to  be  paralelled  elsewhere.  The 
Sixteenth  and  Seventeenth  Centuries   sought  to 


140       ABCHITECTUBE  —  CHAPTER  FIB8T. 

recover  Hellas  and  the  Classic  World ;  but  our 
last  Century  felt  impelled  to  reach  behind  Hellas 
to  antecedent  stages. 

Men  from  the  leading  nations  of  Europe, 
French,  English,  German,  and  also  Italian,  have 
taken  part  in  this  eager  search,  with  a  good  deal 
of  rivalry  and  at  times  with  some  degree  (we 
cannot  help  thinking)  of  national  jealousy.  The 
impartial  judge,  however,  will  be  inclined  to  give 
the  palna  in  Egyptology  to  the  French.  Its 
greatest  name  is  ChampoUion  who  deciphered 
the  grand  mystery,  the  hieroglyphic.  Next  in 
importance  is  the  band  of  French  savans  who 
first  opened  old  Egypt  to  modern  Europe  through 
the  publication  of  their  great  work  illustrating 
Egyptian  monuments.  Then  that  strange  expedi- 
tion of  Napoleon  to  Egypt,  with  its  vague  dream 
of  re-establishing  an  Egyptian  empire,  had  its 
source  in  the  French  character,  which  has  cer- 
tainly shown  itself  to  have  some  deep  strand  of 
sympathy  with  the  ancient  people  of  the  Nile. 
Still  all  Europe  has  felt  the  thrill  of  the  same 
sympathy,  and  has  responded. 

5.  Greek  Mythology  has  not  failed  to  suggest 
the  difference  between  Hellenic  moderation  with 
its  bounds  and  Egyptian  colossality  outstretching 
for  the  boundless.  The  Titans  thrust  down  into 
Tartarus  can  represent  the  fate  of  the  Pyramids 
at  the  hands  of  the  Greek.  The  Giants  who 
piled    Ossa  upon   Pelion  in  order  to    scale   the 


THE  TEMPLE.  141 

Greek  Olympus  were  struck  by  the  thunderbolt 
of  Zeus,  the  supreme  God  of  Hellas.  In  con- 
struction we  have  noted  the  Egyptian  habit  of 
'*  piling  Ossa  upon  Pelion,"  as  the  Greek  might 
say.  Dim  adumbrations  are  these,  but  suggesting 
the  dark  wrestle  of  the  Hellenic  spirit  with  ante- 
cedent monsters  ere  it  moved  forth  into  the 
happy  sunshine  of  its  beautiful  world.  This 
stage  in  its  architectural  manifestation  is  what 
we  are  next  to  consider. 


CHAPTER   SECOND. 

The  European  Type. 

By  all  means  the  most  extensive  and  diversi- 
fied development  of  Architecture  is  found  in 
Europe.  The  colossality  of  the  Orient  and 
especially  of  Egypt  now  splits  up  into  a  vast 
manifoldness  of  forms;  on  the  whole  Europe 
has  multiplicity  rather  than  magnitude;  she  is 
small  in  territory  when  compared  to  Asia,  and 
her  architectural  works  show  somethinor  of  the 
same  proportion,  though  these  are  more  perfect 
and  more  varied.  Enormous  Asia,  in  order  to 
become  normal,  has  to  pass  through  little  Europe 
on  the  way  to  the  future.  We  called  the  Orient 
relatively  the  potential,  the  undeveloped,  the  un- 
born, which  Europe  is  to  make  real,  explicit, 
manifested.  For  instance,  the  Column  was  with- 
(142) 


THE  EVBOPEAN  TYPE,  U3 

out  question  unfolded  inside  the  Enclosure  in 
Egypt,  but  it  never  there  got  outside.  It  was 
never  truly  born  till  it  reached  Hella«. 

Europe  will  accordingly  manifest  Oriental 
Architecture,  though  this  manifestation  will  pass 
through  many  stages,  being  exterior  in  the  Classic 
and  interior  in  the  Christian.  The  fundamental 
forms  of  the  Enclosure — wall ,  roof ,  and  column  — 
will  be  developed  and  wrought  over  in  great 
variety,  adapting  them  to  quite  every  sort  of  in- 
stitutional building.  For  the  essential  function 
of  Architecture  is  to  construct  the  home  of  asso- 
ciated Man,  of  his  institutional  world,  both  relig- 
ious and  secular.  Europe  developing  institutions 
will  build  their  corresponding  edifices,  which  will 
finally  in  the  Renascence  embrace  with  a  pre- 
viously unknown  emphasis  the  real  home,  that  of 
the  Family.  Hence  comes  the  great  diversity 
of  European  structures,  being  adjusted  to  all  the 
different  institutions,  while  in  Egypt  there  was 
chiefly  one,  that  of  the  God,  in  deep  conformity 
with  the  religious  character  of  its  people. 

It  is  worth  while  to  ponder  at  the  start  the 
thought  that  Europe  is  not  so  immediate  a 
builder,  not  such  a  direct  and  inborn  architect 
as  Egypt.  There  is  in  the  former  a  doubleness, 
an  inner  and  outer,  a  separation  between  the 
Spirit  and  its  architectural  Form  which  we  do 
not  find  in  the  latter,  at  least  not  so  developed. 
Egypt  could  not  help  building  herself  into  her. 


144      ABCHITECTUBE— CHAPTEB  SECOND. 

montrraents,  it  was  her  instinct  rather  than  her 
conscious  purpose.  It  would  seem  as  if  the 
Egyptian  God  descended  and  constructed  his  own 
temple,  of  course  through  human  hands;  the 
building  of  the  edifice  was  quite  one  with  the  deity 
in  thought  and  act.  But  the  European  man 
makes  the  abode  of  the  God  who  is  different 
from  it,  is  the  inside  of  what  is  outside,  the 
kernel  of  the  architectural  shell,  to  be  separated 
from  it,  and  to  be  known  and  worshipped  as 
separate. 

Thus  Architecture  is  truly  brought  out  in  Eu- 
rope, is  revealed  in  its  twofold  nature  which  is 
the  fundamental  fact  of  it  and  the  ground  for 
classifying  it  among  the  other  Fine  Arts. 
Moreover  much  the  greater  portion  of  the  works 
belonging  to  this  Art  is  found  within  the  limits 
of  Europe  which  has  so  variously  applied  and 
developed  its  forms.  Still  we  are  to  see  the  one 
underlying  thread  in  all  of  these  variations,  the 
one  Type  which  we  call  European  as  distinct 
from  Oriental. 

So  it  comes  that  we  have  in  the  first  place  to 
formulate  to  ourselves  the  transition  of  Archi- 
tecture from  the  Orient  to  Europe.  It  is  mani- 
fest that  the  former  contains  quite  all  the 
principles  of  the  Art,  but  more  or  less  implicit, 
scattered,  unorganized.  We  shall  find  that 
Europe  will  often  go  back  to  the  Orient  for 
some  constructive  idea  not  fully  realized  there, 


THE  EUROPEAN'  TYPE.  145 

though  conceived  and  darkly  fermenting.  Of 
this  fact  a  striking  instance  is  the  semi-circular 
Arch,  which  was  known  many  hundreds  of  years 
in  the  Valleys  of  the  Nile  and  Euphrates  before 
Rome  took  it  up,  realized  its  possibilities,  and 
made  it  universal  as  her  law.  Even  the  Pointed 
Arch  occurs  sporadically  in  the  Orient,  but  it 
remained  a  germ,  a  mere  potentiality  till  the 
Gothic  Style  unfolded  it  and  made  it  a  reality. 

In  some  such  general  way  we  seek  at  first  to  get 
a  conception  of  the  movement  from  the  Orient 
to  Europe.  But  now  can  we  become  more  defi- 
nite and  lay  our  finger  upon  the  primordial  con- 
structive form  of  this  grand  transition?  In 
other  words,  what  is  the  distinctive  architectural 
act  of  Europe  at  its  separation  from  the  Orient? 
For  the  answer  we  have  to  look  to  Greece,  the 
next  neighbor  and  direct  European  heir  of  the 
East. 

When  the  Greek,  forerunner  of  a  new  archi- 
tectural Type,  in  a  mighty  deed  of  construction 
threw  the  columns  outside  of  the  temple  wall, 
and  moreover  formed  them  into  a  colonnade 
self -returning  and  engirdling  this  temple  wall, 
he  had  transcended  the  Oriental  structure  and 
its  basic  idea .  The  sacred  edifice  is  now  open 
to  the  world,  to  the  people  at  least  on  one  side. 
We  behold  two  Enclosures,  of  quite  opposite 
kinds.  The  one  is  turned  outward,  does  not 
exclude  but  rather   invites   the   wayfarer  to  its 

10 


146     AEGHITEOTURE  —  CHAPTER  SECOND. 

shelter  —  this  is  the  outer  colonnade,  joyous, 
smiling,  accessible  to  everybody.  But  there  is 
the  second  Enclosure,  called  the  Cella,  which  is 
turned  inward,  walled  up,  exclusive  except  at 
the  right  entrance,  being  the  place  of  the 
presence  of  the  God. 

Thus  the  twofoldness  of  European  Architec- 
ture, in  correspondence  with  European  spirit, 
becomes  manifest,  is  built  into  a  holy  edifice. 
We  perceive  the  outer  and  the  inner,  the  appear- 
ance and  the  essence,  the  Here  and  the  Beyond, 
the  Many  and  the  One,  Democracy  and  Aristoc- 
racy, bound  together  in  an  organic  structure. 
We  may  hear  Plato  speak  from  a  Greek  temple 
with  his  two  realms,  phenomenal  and  ideal.  The 
dualism  of  Europe  we  may  see  start  on  its  con- 
structive career  in  the  dualism  of  the  Greek 
Temple,  the  Peristyle  and  the  Cella.  This  double- 
ness,  which  is  the  first  thing  that  the  eye  pene- 
trates in  it,  is  undoubtedly  unified  into  an  organic 
Whole,  as  the  two  symmetrical  sides  of  the 
human  body  become  the  total  organism.  Still 
the  separation  exists  and  is  that  which  the  future 
will  develop  in  various  directions,  showing  the 
look  without  and  the  look  within,  the  world- 
regarding  and  the  ^elf-regarding  principles 
united  in  a  God-regarding  architectonic  totality, 
which  embraces  World,  Man,  and  God.  If  we 
now  compare  the  Egyptian  'with  the  Greek 
Temple,    we    see     the     transition  out     of     the 


THE  EUROPEAN  TYPE.  147 

Orient  to  Europe.  The  outer  wall  of  Karnak 
surrounds  the  rows  of  columns  and  keeps  them 
inside  itself,  excluding  the  world  and  man  (ex- 
cept the  priest).  The  Parthenon  puts  these  col- 
umns outside,  and  disposes  them  not  simply  in 
rows,  but  in  a  self -returning  colonnade  or  Peri- 
style which  surrounds  the  wall  and  makes  it  the 
Cella.  Thus  the  Egyptian  Temple  is  turned  in- 
side out  by  the  Greek,  is  revealed,  is  made  mani- 
fest, appears  to  all  who  may  look.  Such  we 
deem  to  be  the  primordial  architectural  act  of 
Europe  in  its  separation  from  the  Orient.  What 
is  mysterious,  hidden,  undeveloped  andunrevealed 
in  the  East  and  in  Egypt  specially,  Greece  will 
reveal,  bring  out  to  sunlight  and  make  complete,  as 
it  has  done  in  the  case  of  the  columnar  Peristyle 
which  is  its  great  architectural  revelation. 

Another  point  may  be  noticed  in  this  connec- 
tion. The  Egyptian  Temple  has  accretions  one 
after  the  other,  growing  smaller  to  the  last.  It 
is  the  unfinished  and  unfinishable  in  its  outer 
shape ;  it  is  a  series  like  an  infinite  progress  to- 
ward something  beyond.  But  the  Greek  Tem- 
ple is  in  its  way  complete ;  the  Peristyle  rounds 
it  out  and  encloses  it,  permitting  no  accretions. 
It  is  reconciled  with  the  world  which  is  here, 
seeking  not  the  Beyond  in  an  indefinite  struggle 
of  shapes.  In  the  rectangular  plot  of  ground  on 
which  it  is  built  there  is  a  fixed  proportion  be- 
tween front  and  side,  which  makes  the  Enclosure 


148    AECHITECTUBE—  CHAPTER  SECOND. 

a  definite  unity.  There  is  no  continuous  slant 
upwards  such  as  we  see  in  the  Pyramid  or  Pylon ; 
its  shape  is  that  of  a  paralellogram,  determined 
from  within  and  complete  in  itself,  simply  with 
a  slanting  roof  for  a  cover  in  i*ainland.  So  the 
Greek  Temple,  compared  to  the  Egyptian,  is 
self-contained,  individualized,  finished.  It  moves 
from  within  outward,,  to  the  visible,  sensuous, 
finite;  yet  it  also  suggests  the  movement  from 
without  inward,  to  the  presence  of  the  God  in 
the  Cella.  Herein  again  the  two  movements  or 
tendencies  complement  each  other,  and  form  a 
spiritual  Whole  or  rather  a  whole  Spirit  —  not  a 
one-sided  striving  for  the  Infinite,  nor  a  one- 
sided lapsing  to  the  Sensuous. 

While  we  have  spoken  of  the  Greek  Peristyle 
as  a  single  architectural  act,  still  this  work  was 
not  instantaneous,  was  not  done  at  one  cast  of 
inventive  genius.  On  the  contrary  there  was  a 
growth  and  quite  a  long  growth  toward  the  peris- 
tylar  principle  in  early  Hellas.  The  simple  kind 
of  temples,  first  with  two  columns  in  front  (^tem- 
plum  in  antis),  then  with  four  columns  in  front 
(prosti/Ios) ,  then  with  four  columns  in  front  and 
four  behind  {a7nphiprostylos)  were  unquestion- 
ably stages  of  development  toward  the  finished 
Peristyle.  In  fact  Beni- Hassan  has  already 
substantially  the  facade  of  the  Doric  templum  in 
antis.  Greece  developed  the  association  of  the 
columns  into  their  complete  inter-connected  com- 


THE  EUROPEAN  TYPE,  149 

munity,  as  well  as  unfolded  the    forms  of  the 
individual  Column. 

And  we  must  not  forget  that  the  European,  as 
well  as  the  Oriental  wall,  has  to  do  double  duty : 
it  has  to  enclose  and  also  to  bear  the  superin- 
cumbent burden.  Time  will  bring  about  its  lib- 
eration from  one  of  these  onerous  tasks,  in  order 
that  it  may  perform  the  other  more  effectuall}^ 
But  that  requires  a  wholly  new  principle  of  con- . 
struction,  which  will  bring  forth  the  third  great 
Type  of  Architecture  lying  beyond  Europe  in  the 
new  Occident. 

There  is,  on  the  whole,  an  agreement  among 
writers  in  reference  to  the  divisions  and  the 
general  sweep  of  European  Architecture.  This 
corresponds  to  the  historic  movement  of  the 
State  and  of  other  Institutions,  of  which  Architec- 
ture builds  the  fitting  abode.  Europe  in  almost 
every  direction  divides  itself  into  ancient,  medie- 
val and  modern.  But  the  deeper  fact  of  this 
division  must  not  be  left  out :  it  is  an  inner 
process  having  three  stages  in  correspondence 
with  the  Self  which  created  it  and  of  which  it  is 
a  manifestation.  Along  with  the  outer  history 
of  Architecture  revealing  itself  in  forms  of  in- 
finite diversity  we  are  to  trace  the  inner  genetic 
principle  whose  speech  they  are.  Accordingly  we 
shall  try  at  the  start  to  indicate  briefly  the  salient 
thought  in  each  of  these  three  stages  of  European 
Architecture . 


150     AECHITEGTUBE  —  CHAPTER  SECOND. 

I.  The  Classic  8tyle  (^Greco-Boman),  which 
is  often  called  the  antique.  Its  general  charac- 
ter is  to  exteriorize  and  thus  make  manifest  what 
was  before  inside;  to  develop  the  architectural 
forms  of  structure  and  to  make  them  visible;  to 
unfold  and  to  evolve  to  their  supreme  validity  the 
Column  (Greek)  and  the  Arch  (Roman).  The 
Classic  Style  really  brings  forth  Architecture 
into  the  world  outwardly,  and  then  its  work  as 
an  independent  Art  is  done. 

II.  The  Romanic  Style  {Ohristiaii),  whose 
general  tendency  is  to  interiorize  the  classic 
forms,  particularly  the  Column  and  Arch,  and  to 
develop  them  inwardly,  both  together  and  in 
separation.  Thus  the  columnar  principle  be- 
comes internal  in  the  Church  whose  wall  is  again 
outside  (as  in  Egypt),  and  the  Column  conjoined 
with  the  Arch  is  put  inside.  The  dualism  of  this 
Style  is  expressed  in  an  inside  and  outside  (of 
the  Church),  and  also  in  an  upper  heavenly 
world  (as  in  the  Dome)  and  the  lower  terrestrial 
world  (as  in  the  body  of  the  Church.) 

III.  Tlte  Renascence^  or  the  Revival  of  the 
Classic  World,  which  showed  itself  in  Architec- 
ture, as  well  as  in  Art  and  Science  generally. 
The  movement  was  largely  secular  and  built  the 
new  home  for  secular  Institutions,  though  it 
passed  over  into  ecclesiastical  structures  also. 
The  name  as  well  as  the  thought  of  this  epoch 
signify  the  return  to  the  first  stage,  that  of  clas- 


TEE  EUBOPEAN  TYPE.  151 

sical  antiquity,  and  the  recovery  of  what  was 
lost  or  obscured  through  medieval  Architecture, 
and  its  great  Institution. 

European  Architecture  thus  works  out  the 
structural  dualism  which  started  in  Greece  with 
Peristyle  and  Cella.  After  developing  outside, 
it  will  pass  inside  and  develop  there,  till  again  it 
moves  outward  and  recons'tructs  the  classic 
forms  of  Architecture,  filling  them  with  a  new 
purpose  and  widening  their  horizon. 

In  Europe  as  well  as  in  the  Orient  Architec- 
ture must  be  grasped  as  the  home  of  associated 
Man,  the  dwelling-place  of  the  Spirit  which  unites 
the  Community,  the  City,  or  the  Nation.  It  is 
the  God  who  associates,  in  Him  the  individuals 
are  one  Will  which  also  must  have  its  House. 
This  House  of  all  houses  is  what  we  study  in 
Architecture,  being  the  home  of  that  Spirit 
which  makes  man  institutional.  Now,  the  Eu- 
ropean deity  has  been  conceived  variously  at 
various  times,  and  consequently  there  is  a  corre- 
sponding variety  in  his  edifices.  Still  these  have 
the  common  European  Type,  which  in  general 
demands  that  the  indwelling  Spirit  be  wholly 
separate  from  the  Enclosure  .which  is  the  out- 
side. This  separation,  however,  shows  three 
different  stages:  first  the  Spirit  as  statue  (Clas- 
sic) ;  second,  the  Spirit  in  itself,  apart  from 
statue  or  idol  (Christian);  third,  the  Spirit  as 
universal   or  seeking   to  be  such  by  being  both 


162     ABCHITEOTUBE  —  CHAPTER  SECOND. 

seculiar  and  religious  (Renascence).  Egypt 
never  fully  made  this  European  separation, 
though  showing  a  tendency  thereto ;  its  Gods  had 
an  architectural  element  even  when  formed  into 
statues.  They  were  essentially  building  deities 
and  found  their  best  expression  in  Egyptian 
Architecture.  But  in  Europe  the  indwelling 
Spirit  insists  upoh  being  distinguished  from  its 
outer  dwelling-place,  though  the  latter  must  be 
made  worthy  of  its  possessor,  and  reflect  his 
spirit. 

Such  is  the  outline  of  the  movement  of  Euro- 
pean Spirit  expressing  itself  architecturally  for 
about  2500  years.  It  is  felt  that  there  is  some- 
thing complete,  indeed  quite  finished  in  this 
long  period;  it  conveys  the  impression  of  a 
rounded-out  totality,  of  a  cycle  of  man's  de- 
velopment in  the  confines  of  little  Europe. 
Certainly  for  us  it  is  the  most  important  era  of 
human  culture,  whose  varied  utterances  (of  which 
Architecture  is  but  one)  we  seek  to  make  our 
own,  and  to  organize  into  an  harmonious  Whole. 
To  this  end  we  may  primarily  grasp  it  as  the 
foregoing  process,  and  then  proceed  to  details 
in  which  we  shall  find  the  same  underlying  prin- 
ciple of  order. 


Section  First.  —  The  Classic  Style. 

Hellas  and  Rome  are  the  twins  of  the  antique 
world,  each  of  whom  gave  a  precious  contribu- 
tion to  Architecture.  The  Greek  Column  and 
the  Eoman  Arch,  first  in  isolation,  then  in  oppo- 
sition, and  finally  in  reconciliation,  form  together 
the  vital  pulsation  and  process  of  the  Classic 
Style  in  its  manifold  evolution  from  beginning 
to  end.  At  the  same  time  the  Greek  and  the 
Eoman  have  the  common  principle  of  throw- 
ing their  work  out  into  the  world,  of  making 
visible  their  constructive  forms ;  they  manifest 
the  interior  through  a  transformation  of  the 
exterior.  The  veiled  image  of  Sais  (in  Egypt) 
is  unveiled  and  is  made  to  show  her  face;  the 
sacred  hieroglyphic  is  translated  into  the  vulgar 
tongue  which  all  the  people  speak  and  read; 
revelation   is   already  in  old  Greece  the  watch- 

(153) 


154    ABCHITECTUBE  -  THE  EUBOPEAN  TYPE. 

word  of  culture  and  is  destined  soon  to  become 
the  key-note  of  European  religion  in  Christianity. 

We  have  already  seen  that  Classic  Architec- 
ture starts  in  ancient  Greece  by  developing  the 
double  Enclosure  of  the  God,  namely  Peristyle 
and  Cella,  which  remain  in  one  form  or  other  to 
the  conclusion  of  antiquity  in  the  Roman  Em- 
pire. The  external  relation  of  these  two  encom- 
passing elements  is  maintained,  though  broken 
into  and  reconstituted  in  a  number  of  ways. 
Chiefly  the  introduction  of  the  Arch  is  epochal 
since  it  substantially  does  away  with  the  single 
long  tie-beam  as  the  supported  cover  in  the 
Greek  Norm.  Also  the  Column  as  supporting  is 
transformed  in  meaning,  since  it  is  reduced  by 
the  Eoman  to  a  mere  decoration  or  perchance 
explanation  of  his  Arch.  Still  the  Column  with 
Architrave  does  not  vanish,  it  continues  to  talk 
its  native  Greek  speech,  even  if  it  drops  down 
to  a  kind  of  rhetorical  externality  celebrating 
Roman  triumphs  perchance  over  itself. 

Here,  then,  we  come  upon  the  question.  What 
was  the  inner  necessity  of  this  change?  Why 
did  the  Roman  turn  away  from  the  Greek  con- 
structive Norm  already  fully  developed  and  at 
hand  for  his  use?  There  must  have  been  some 
internal  weakness  in  the  Hellenic  building  which 
rendered  it  incapable  of  bearing  the  enormous 
burden  of  the  Roman  world-conqueror.  What 
was  it  and  where  did  it  lie? 


THE  CLASSIC  STYLE,  155 

The  weakest  spot  in  the  Greek  temple  lay  in 
the  Architrave.  That  horizontal  tie-beam  con- 
necting two  columns  was  the  uncertain  point,  ever 
threatening  to  give  way  through  some  flaw  in  the 
material  or  through  some  unusual  strain  or  seismic 
wrench.  Evidently  it  caused  no  small  anxiety 
to  the  Greek  architect,  and  went  asunder  some- 
times while  being  put  into  place.  It  might  be  of 
wood  and  hence  tenacious  in  fiber,  still  it  was 
liable  to  combustion  fast  or  slow,  by  fire  or  rot. 
Hence  we  hear  of  temples  burning  so  often  in 
Greece.  It  was  probably  Xerxes  who  forced 
stone  construction  through  and  through,  on 
account  of  his  having  set  fire  to  so  many  sanc- 
tuaries during  his  invasion.  The  old  Parthenon 
was  burned  by  him  in  its  wooden  portion,  for 
drums  of  its  stone  columns  can  be  seen  to-day  in 
the  walls  of  the  Acropolis  of  Athens. 

The  same  difficulty  lay  in  the  cross-beams  of 
the  ceiling.  Thus  the  Greek  temple  became  full 
of  dangerous  spots.  If  we  ramble  through 
Greek  ruins  we  often  see  some  of  its  horizontal 
beams  in  position  while  others  have  fallen, 
though  their  columns  are  still  standing.  It  is  an 
inadequate  explanation  to  say,  as  is  often  done, 
that  they  were  thrown  down  by  human  hands  or 
by  an  earthquake,  and  were  broken  by  the  fall. 
They  went  asunder  through  some  defect,  being 
originally  not  so  good  as  those  which  remain  in 
place,    and    being    unable    to    resist  heat,   cold, 


156    ABCHITEGTUBE  —  THE  EUROPEAN  TYPE. 

moisture,  the  assault  of  the  elements  which  are 
sure  to  find  just  this  defect. 

Here  we  come  to  the  fact  which  caused  the 
Roman  to  reject  for  his  great  public  works  the 
Greek  constructive  Norm,  though  he  employed 
it  often  for  temples  and  basilicas,  which  had  no 
weight  to  sustain  except  their  own  materials. 
That  cross-piece  could  not  be  trusted  in  a  via- 
duct or  bridge,  so  he  cut  it  up  into  voussoirs 
and  made  of  it  an  Arch,  which  cannot  break  but 
seems  to  grow  stronger  with  the  increase  of  its 
burden.  The  new  task  laid  upon  Architecture 
by  Eome  demanded  a  new  principle,  and  so  the 
Arch  weaves  itself  into  the  movement  of  the 
Classic  Style. 

And  now  we  have  reached  the  point  where  we 
must  grasp  this  movement  which  starts  with  the 
Greek  Norm  (trabeate-columnar),  reaches  out 
and  appropriates  the  Arch,  assimilating  it  in 
various  ways  till  at  Rome  we  see  the  Greek  Col- 
umn supporting  the  Roman  Arch  (arcuate-colum- 
nar), which  form  we  may  take  as  the  conclusion 
of  the  Classic  Style  (seen  best  in  the  Baths 
of  Diocletian).  Again  we  find  in  this  sweep 
three  leading  stages  which  we  shall  designate  as 
follows : 

I.  The  Hellenic  Period;  this  shows  the  pure 
Greek  Architecture,  confined  to  the  Hellenic 
nation.  It  has  a  centripetal  tendency;  starting 
on  the  border  of  the  Greek  World  in  the  colonies 


THE  CLASSIC  STYLE.  157 

West  and  East,  then  moving  inward  to  conti- 
nental Hellas  it  reaches  the  central  city,  Athens, 
where  it  attains  its  highest  development.  Con- 
structively it  shuns  the  arch  and  the  slant,  and 
clings  to  the  rectilineal  and  rectangular. 

II.  The  Hellenistic  Period;  this  is  the  centri- 
fugal movement  of  Greek  Architecture  passing 
outward  from  its  Athenian  center  beyond  the 
borders  of  Hellas  to  the  non-Hellenic  world.  It 
sweeps  over  the  Orient  with  the  Macedonian 
Empire,  and  spreads  through  the  West,  pene- 
trating Italy  and  specially  the  rising  Rome. 
Everywhere,  however,  the  Greek  Norm  runs 
upon,  struggles  against,  and  finally  coalesces  with 
a  new  constructive  principle,  the  Arch. 

III.  The  Roman  Imperial  Period;  this  is  a 
new  concentration  of  Classic  Architecture,  a 
gathering  of  it  from  the  rim  of  the  whole 
civilized  world  into  a  single  central  city,  not  the 
capital  of  one  nation  but  of  all  nations.  Thus 
Classic  Architecture  has  another  great  centri- 
petal sweep  to  its  culmination  in  one  spot,  from 
which,  however,  it  will  again  fly  outwards  into 
the  Roman  provinces,  showing  itself  to  be  truly 
imperial  and  universal.  We  see  the  Hellenic 
movement  now  borne  out  of  its  narrow  national 
bounds  and  given  to  all  peoples  by  Rome.  With 
this  act  the  career  of  Classic  Architecture  closes, 
or  r-ather  is  brought  to  a  close  by  the  blow  of 
Fate,    and   a   new   epoch   sets  in   with  its  own 


158     ABCHITECTVBE-^  THE  EUROPEAN  TYPE. 

Architecture  which  will  not  fail  to  preserve  and 
to  employ  in  new  ways  those  constructive  prin- 
ciples coming  from  Greece  and  Rome,  the 
Column  and  Arch,  or  more  fully,  the  colonnaded 
Architrave  (trabeate-columnar)  and  the  colon- 
naded Arch  (arcuate-columnar). 

Glancing  back  at  the  Egyptian  slant  we  may 
conceive  it  on  its  potential  side  as  straightening 
itself  up  and  becoming  vertical  (Greek),  or  as 
bending  over  and  becoming  round  in  the  Arch 
(Roman).  Moreover,  the  down-bearing  prin- 
ciple which  is  so  strongly  emphasized  in  the 
Egyptian  slant,  is  met  by  an  equally  powerful 
up-bearing  principle  in  the  perpendicular  wall. 
But  specially  the  Column,  the  supporter,  is 
fully  developed  and  manifested  in  all  its  glory,  by 
the  Greek.  Only  the  Obelisk  which  is  not  dis- 
tinctively a  supporter  at  all,  but  rather  a  soli- 
tary unsocial  pier  has  gotten  outside  of  the  En- 
closure in  Egypt.  Still  further,  the  Greek 
Column  does  not  merely  up-bear,  but  is  a  mem- 
ber of  a  social  Whole,  of  the  engirdling  Peri- 
style, which  columnar  society  has  before  it  a 
long  European  evolution  both  outside  and  inside 
the  Enclosure. 

So,  when  Europe  starts  on  its  distinctive 
career,  we  behold  associated  Man  again  making 
the  home  of  the  God  of  Association,  who  is  now 
to  be  revealed  constructively  as  associative,  as 
the  creator  of  association  and  the  maker  of   in- 


THE  CLASSIC  STYLE.  159 

stitutions.  The  columnar  Peristyle  appears  in 
the  first  complete  Greek  temple,  manifesting  an 
association  of  architectural  individuals,  which 
unite  and  form  a  social  Whole.  Not  a  single 
column  nor  a  row  of  columns  do  we  see  but  a 
totality  in  itself,  which  is  truly  the  sign  of  a  new 
world. 

Putting  together  the  preceding  three  Periods 
we  must  again  call  to  mind  that  they  constitute 
one  process  which  is  fundamentally  psychical, 
having  its  root  in  the  very  movement  of  the  Self, 
whether  we  take  it  as  universal  (the  Pampsy- 
chosis)  or  as  individual  (Ego).  For  Architec- 
ture stands  not  alone  in  the  Universe,  but  is  a 
stage  of  a  still  larger  process  which  embraces  all 
Art,  and  even  Art  is  merely  one  cycle  included 
in  a  much  vaster  cycle.  Still  these  lesser  pro- 
cesses mirror  the  greater  and  the  greatest,  each 
being  a  part  only  because  it  contains  ideally  or 
in  thought  the  Whole. 


160  ABGEIT^CTUUE  —  EUBOPEAN/ 


I.  The  Hellenic  Period. 

As  the  Pyramid  may  be  placed  at  the  begin- 
ning of  the  total  architectural  movement  of  the 
race,  so  the  Greek  Temple  may  be  placed  at  the 
beginning  of  European  Architecture.  It  is  the 
normal  building  out  of  which  flows  the  stream  of 
succeeding  edifices  in  Europe,  at  least  those  of 
truly  artistic  significance. 

The  creative  source  of  all  great  European 
Architecture  is,  then,  the  theme  now  before  us, 
furnished  by  the  cunning  brain  and  hand  of  the  old 
Greek.  Through  all  future  construction  of  the 
noble  or  artistic  kind  his  work  is  to  be  seen, 
transforming  and  transformed,  since  he  has  given 
to  his  successors  the  primordial  Norm  of  the 
beautiful  building.  This  is  not  saying  that 
Greek  Architecture  alone  is  beautiful,  as  some 
enthusiastic  admirers  have  said  and  still  say. 
But  we  may  affirm  that  it  starts  and  shapes  the 
European  evolution  of  the  architectonic  Art,  and 
is  to  be  seen  as  the  creative  principle  running 
through  it  from  beginning  to  end. 

As  practiced  by  the  Greeks,  Architecture  is  a 
national  Art,  bearing  the  impress  of  Hellenic 
spirit.  It  rises  with  the  nation's  rise,  blooms 
with  the  nation's  bloom,  and  sinks  with  the 
nation's  decline.     It  keeps  pace  with  the  move- 


TEE  HELLENIC  PEBIOD.  161 

ment  of  Grecian  independence,  and  is  one  form 
of  the  latter' s  expression.  To  be  sure  Hellas 
produced  many  other  forms  of  expression  in 
Art,  Poetry,  Philosophy,  Science;  indeed  she 
seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  give  to  man  the 
ability  and  the  means  of  adequately  expressing 
himself,  to  put  outside  of  himself  in  transparent 
forms  what  lies  within  him.  We  shall  see  Greek 
Architecture  to  be  an  utterance,  an  external- 
ization  of  what  was  before  implicit,  unuttered  in 
the  Orient.  What  else  is  that  free  row  of  col- 
umns, standing  forth  in  the  world  and  encircling 
the  Greek  Temple? 

We  are  to  see  three  main  elements  coming 
together  in  order  to  produce  the  phenomenon 
known  as  Greek  Architecture.  First  is  the  old 
Aryan  heritage  of  constructive  ideas,  primitive, 
even  barbarous,  common  to  early  European  peo- 
ples— we  might  call  this  element  proto-European. 
Second  is  the  developed  civilized  construction 
coming  from  Egypt  chiefly,  which  Greece  follows 
in  the  line  of  civilization.  Third  and  most  im- 
portant is  the  peculiar  Greek  development  of  in- 
stitutions, specially  the  City-State,  very  different 
from  the  institutions  of  Egypt  or  of  the  River 
Valleys  of  the  Orient.  Greece,  divided  up  by 
mountains  and  estuaries  of  the  sea  into  small, 
separate  patches  of  territory,  unfolded  in  the 
course  of  centuries  its  spirit  of  communal  free- 
dom   which    became   the  deepest    fact    of    the 

11 


162  ABGHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

national  consciousness,  moulding  all  its  Art  and 
Science,  and  imparting  a  unique  character  to 
its  Civilization.  Greek  Architecture  is,  accord- 
ingly, the  expression  of  the  Greek  institutional 
world,  which  obtained  its  materials  from  diverse 
sources,  but  transformed  them  all  into  the  image 
of  itself.  The  Greek  City-State  is  the  primor- 
dial artist  of  Hellas,  who  receives  his  clay  from 
this  quarter  and  that,  but  re-shapes  it  into  his 
own  beautiful  Gods  and  their  sacred  dwelling- 
places. 

There  is  no  doubt,  then,  that  the  Architecture 
of  Greece  is  the  child  of  Greek  communal  free- 
dom. The  institution  is  the  parent  of  Art, 
whose  primal  function  in  the  present  case  is  to 
make  a  home  for  the  Greek  Gods  who  united 
the  Greeks  in  their  institutional  life.  The  Hel- 
lenic temple  flowered  out  in  all  its  beauty  and 
perfection  just  after  the  Persian  War,  which  was 
the  complete  separation  of  Greece  from  the 
Orient,  and  indeed  the  triumphant  assertion  of 
new  Europe.  But  this  mighty  historic  act,  the 
greatest  of  antiquity,  had  long  been  preparing. 
The  Trojan  War  had  already  shown  the  struggle 
between  Asia  and  Europe.  The  Parthenon  is  as 
much  a  result  of  the  Athenian  Democracy  as 
Marathon  and  Salamis,  as  Pericles  and  Phidias, 
as  Aeschylus  and  Sophocles,  as  Socrates  and 
Plato.  But  previous  to  the  Parthenon  and  to 
the  Democracy,  there  was  a  long  evolution  both 


THE  HELLENIC  PEBIOD.  16^ 

of   the  Architecture  and  the  Institution.     This 
k  what  we  may  now  look  at. 

I.  •  Long  before  the  dawn  ©f  History,  and  long 
before  the  dawn  of  poetry  in  Homer,  there  was 
an  old  Greek  epoch  which  we  may  call  Pelasgic, 
in  accord  with  the  general  conception  of  ancient 
writers.  Much  erudition  has  been  spent  upon 
finding  out  who  were  the  Pelasgians,  who  seem  to 
lie  in  the  background  not  only  of  Greece  but  also 
of  Italy  and  Asia  Minor,  in  fact  of  the  entire 
North-Mediterranean  civilization.  Verily  they 
are  a  nebulous  people  (Niebelungs)  dwelling  in  a 
distant,  foggy,  prehistoric  cloudland  (Nifleheim) 
often  deemed  by  popular  mythology  to  be  giants 
on  account  of  the.  colossal  works  which  they  left 
behind  in  ruins.  For  our  purpose  we  shall  con- 
sider the  Pelasgians  to  be  that  ancient  race,  the 
old  Aryan,  which  moved  to  the  West  from  Cen- 
tral Asia  in  migratory  layers  through  Asia  Minor 
to  Europe,  gradually  passing  into  and  taking 
possession  of  the  three  peninsulas  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea  —  the  Greek,  the  Italic,  and  Spanish. 
Along  the  whole  length  of  the  line  of  this 
migration,  or  rather  series  of  migrations,  last- 
ing perhaps  thousands  of  years,  they  left  their 
monuments  which  have  certain  common  charac- 
teristics from  the  Euphrates  to  the  Atlantic. 
Such  was  the  old  Aryan  substrate  out  of  which 
the  Greek  stock  grew  and  gradually  individual- 


164  ARCHITECTURE  —  EUROPEAN. 

ized  itself  as  a  people  unique  and  distinct  from 
other  even  cognate  peoples. 

The  cultivated  Greek  of  later  times  knew, 
even  if  dimly  and  fragmentarily,  of  this  original 
Aryan  protoplasm  of  his  race.  He  read  his 
Homer,  often  knowing  the  Homeric  forms  by 
heart.  Now  Homer  calls  Zeus,  the  supreme 
Hellenic  God,  Pelasgic,  and  thus  in  religion  con- 
nects Hellas  with  this  old  pre-historic  people. 
But  scattered  villages  of  the  Pelasgians  still  ex- 
isted in  the  historic  age,  as  we  may  gather  from 
Greek  writers.  Thus  dispersed  boulders  of  this 
ancient  era  were  lying  around  in  Greece,  and 
Herodotus  in  the  fifth  century  before  Christ 
heard  the  Pelasgian  speech  and  commented  upon 
it,  though  not  very  intelligently. 

In  the  present  connection,  however,  the  object 
is  to  distinguish  and  to  characterize  the  old 
Pelasgic  monuments  which  may  be  regarded  in 
part  as  the  originals  of  Greek  Architecture. 
First  is  the  town-wall,  that  massive  masonry 
which  has  excited  the  wonder  of  all  observers, 
particularly  of  the  Greeks  themselves.  Pau- 
sanias,  a  Greek  traveler,  declares  that  the  walls 
of  Tiryns  are  a  marvel  equal  to  the  Pyramids  of 
Egypt.  Cyclopean  this  masonry  is  often  named, 
the  term  being  derived  from  the  Cyclops,  a 
fabulous  race  of  giant  smiths  and  builders.  The 
quality  of  the  work  is  of  various  degrees,  from  a 
pile  of  large  irregular  stones  with  interstices  filled 


TEE  HELLENIC  PERIOD.  165 

by  rubbk,  to  huge  rectangular  blocks  duly 
trimmed  and  laid  in  order.  Another  well  known 
style  of  the  Cyclopean  wall  employs  polyonal 
blocks  closely  fitted  together,  instead  of  the 
irregular  and  the  rectangular.  But  all  these  styles 
have  the  common  characteristic:  a  manifesta- 
tion of  prodigious  human  strength,  a  striving 
for  colossality,  which  is  to  be  tamed  down  into 
Greek  moderation. 

In  viewing  these  mighty  town- walls,  one  feels 
that  they  are  the  product  of  the  whole  commun- 
ity working  as  one  man  with  gigantic  power. 
Such  is,  indeed,  the  real  giant,  not  the  individ- 
ual, but  the  associated  Whole  in  which  all  the 
members  are  grown  into  one  vast  organic  body 
which  builds  as  its  true  counterpart  this  massive 
Enclosure  for  protection.  Outside  of  it  was 
insecurity  of  property  and  life  and  indeed 
of  the  institution;  roving  bands  of  maraud- 
ers might  not  only  steal  individuals,  but 
might  sweep  the  entire  community  into  cap- 
tivity which  then  meant  slavery.  But  in- 
side these  walls  lay  communal  security  and 
independence,  they  were  the  bulwark  not  only 
of  the  individual,  but  also  of  the  institution, 
yea  of  the  God ;  hence  they  are  built  with  such 
terrible  sincerity  even  if  rude,  with  such  a 
strength  not  simply  of  muscle  but  of  conviction. 
As  we  look  upon  the  walls  of  Tiryns  and  think 
of  the  labor  involved,  we   cannot   help   feeling 


166  ABCIUTECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

that  they  arose  through  a  profound  sense  of 
religious  duty,  perchance  of-  religious  fervor. 
They  engirdled  and  protected  that  little  society, 
separating  it  from  all  others  even  of  the  same 
kind,  and  giving  to  it  the  opportunity  for  devel- 
oping its  own  individual  character.  Herein  we 
may  see  the  primal  origin  of  that  large  galaxy 
of  independent  Greek  City-States,  which  show 
themselves  in  historic  Hellas  with  such  a  variety 
of  power  and  character,  and  out  of  which  the 
perfected  Architecture  of  Hellas  is  to  spring. 

In  these  Pelasgic  city-walls  enveloping  and 
protecting  the  institutional  home  of  the  people 
was  another  walled  Enclosure  much  less  in  size, 
but  the  heart  of  the  entire  town,  the  Temple  of 
the  God,  Most  of  these  structures  have  van- 
ished, not  being  constructed  for  defense  like  the 
outer  wall.  Still  a  few  have  escaped,  particu- 
larly in  remote  corners  of  the  island  Euboea. 
The  so-called  Temple  of  Zeus  and  Hera  on 
Mount  Ocha  is  declared  to  be  the  oldest  m 
Greece,  and  has  essentially  the  Pelasgic  masonry. 
It  is  an  oblong  rectangle,  measuring  inside  a 
little  over  32  feet  in  length  and  somewhat  more 
than  16  feet  m  width.  Thus  it  shows  both  the 
shape  and  the  proportion  of  the  Greek  Temple  of 
which  it  may  well  be  deemed  the  primitive  Cella 
without  a  column  inside  or  outside.  The  roof 
was  made  of  stone  slabs  leaning  against  one 
another  and  resting  upon  the  opposite  side-w^alls 


THE  HELLENIC  PEBIOD.  167 

of  the  building.  Thus  the  ancient  Pelasgians 
began  to  construct  temples  of  stone,  though 
their  sanctuaries  must  have  been  chiefly  of  wood 
in  primitive  times.  The  citj-walls  could  not  be 
built  of  combustible  material,  being  exposed  to 
the  attack  of  the  enemy.  But  this  early  race  of 
builders  made  the  transition  from  the  stone-wall 
of  the  town  to  the  stone-wall  of  the  Temple. 
Still  they  hardly  produced  the  round  column 
with  mouldings — this  came  from  Egypt.  Still 
less  did  they  develop  the  Peristyle  encompassing 
the  Temple  with  its  columnar  rows  —  this  is  the 
product  and  the  symbol  of  civilized  Hellas. 

Another  constructive  principle  known  to  the 
Pelasgians  was  the  Arch,  both  the  true  and  the 
false  so-called,  that  is  the  Arch  made  of  wedge- 
shaped  voussoirs,  and  the  Arch  built  by  hori- 
zontal stone  beams  projecting  gradually  toward 
each  other  from  different  sides  till  they  meet. 
It  may  be  fairly  said  that  the  Pelasgic  builders 
loved  the  round  vault,  so  often  do  they  employ 
it  —  wherein  they  stand  in  striking  contrast  to 
the  historic  Greeks  (and  also  Egyptians)  who 
evidently  disliked  it  and  discarded  it  consciously. 
The  ancient  Treasuries  (Thesauri)  built  by  the 
Pelasgians  were  roui^d  and  were  vaulted  inside, 
of  course  in  the  second  way  before-mentioned. 
They  had  apparently  a  triple  purpose  —  as 
tombs,  as  sanctuaries  for  rites  and  worship 
connected  with  the  dead,  and  as  treasure-houses. 


168  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUROPE  AK. 

Kound  Temples  we  also  find  in  this  primitive  age, 
at  least  round  Enclosures  which  must  have  been 
regarded  as  sacred. 

So  much  for  these  primordial  constructive 
forms  which  the  Greek  inherited  from  his  old 
Aryan  ancestry,  but  which  he  will  modify  in 
various  ways.  He  will  show  a  tendency  to  re- 
ject all  round  construction,  including  arch  and 
vault;  he  will  change  from  the  spirit  which 
breathes  out  of  the  massive  Cyclopean  masonry ; 
he  will  retain  the  rectangular  stone  Cella,  but  will 
make  to  it  a  unique  additionin  the  column,  which 
in  its  early  shape  is  brought  to  him  from  abroad, 
from  the  Valley  of  the  Nile. 

II.  In  the  Pelasgic  era  the  Greek  was  as  yet 
unborn,  undifferentiated  from  the  underlying 
Aryan  (or  proto-European)  mass  which  was  the 
potentiality  or  primitive  stuff  of  so  many  diverse 
peoples  of  Europe.  But  the  time  comes  when 
the  differentiation  has  to  take  place  and  when  the 
Hellenic  race  has  to  be  definitely  born  and  to 
assume  its  grand  historic  task  in  the  monumental 
labor  of  the  ages.  This  period  had  been  long 
preparing,  but  its  crisis  is  heralded  by  the  finest 
outburst  of  song  in  existence,  the  poems  of 
Homer,  which  really  proclaim  not  only  the  birth 
of  Hellas  but  of  Europe,  Hitherto  the  differ- 
ence from  the  Orient,  even  if  germinating,  had 
not  matured,  that  underljang  Aryan  substrate 
was    essentially    Oriental.     But  the    separation 


THE  HELLENIC  PEBIOD.  169 

from  the  primitive  All-mother  takes  place  in  the 
painful  throes  of  war.  For  the  Trojan  conflict, 
even  if  mythical,  was  very  real  and  lasted  not 
only  ten  years,  but  ten  times  ten  and  probably 
much  longer.  In  fact  it  is  not  finished  to-day, 
if  we  look  at  it  in  its  widest  sense. 

The  age  of  Homer  had  its  Architecture  as  we 
see  from  his  descriptions,  particularly  in  the 
Odyssey.  The  greater  part  of  the  monuments 
of  Mycenae  we  may  consider  to  belong  to 
Homer's  period.  Curious  architectural  orna- 
ments we  observe ;  sculpture  has  arrived,  though 
still  a  foreigner ;  but  especially  the  column  has 
reached  Mycenae,  though  seemingly  not  yet 
structural.  Still  it  is  not  the  Egyptian  column, 
but  shows  an  Ionic  character  as  if  it  might  have 
traveled  to  its  destination  through  Asia  Minor, 
The  column  between  the  two  lions  over  the  so- 
called  Lions'  Gate  at  Mycenae,  seems  an  inverted 
Ionic  column  with  base  on  top  and  diminishing 
downward. 

It  is  not  unlikely  that  the  Doric  column  also 
had  arrived  in  the  Homeric  or  Mycenean  epoch , 
had  arrived  before  the  Dorians  themselves  who 
afterwards  adopted  it  in  distinction  from  the 
Ionic,  and  transformed  it  in  accord  with  their 
spirit.  It  is  also  probable  that  both  the  Ionic 
and  Doric  columns  were  first  wrought  of  wood. 
But  this  does  not  mean  that  they  were  wholly 
developed  in  Greece  from  timber  construction. 


170  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

On  the  contrary,  the  first  imitation  of  the  Egyp- 
tian columns  in  Greece  was  naturally  of  wood, 
from  which  it  would  pass  to  stone,  as  the  more 
durable  material. 

Here  we  must  take  note  of  a  monument  which 
has  aroused  a  great  deal  of  discussion.  The  so- 
called  Herseon,  uncovered  by  the  German  exca- 
vators at  Olympia,  is  declared  to  be  the  oldest 
temple  in  Greece.  It  is  a  Doric  Peristyle,  with 
six  columns  on  each  front  and  sixteen  on  each 
side ;  all  the  columns  differ  from  one  another, 
varying  in  their  diameters,  in  their  capitals,  and 
even  in  their  materials.  To  account  for  these 
differences  conjecture  has  been  very  busy.  Par- 
ticularly it  has  been  supposed  that  the  columns 
were  originally  of  wood,  and  were  gradually 
replaced  by  those  of  stone.  This  may  be  true, 
but  the  inference  that  the  Doric  column  was 
entirely  derived  from  timber  construction  does 
not  follow  and  is  absurd. 

The  oblong  Cella  of  this  Temple  is  the  earliest 
part,  and  resembles  others  found  in  Greece. 
But  the  Peristyle  is  later,  much  later ;  we  hold 
it  to  be  post-colonial  and  in  its  conception  to 
have  been  derived  from  the  colonial  Greeks  who 
visited  the  Olympic  games.  It  is  a  mistake  to 
consider  this  Peristyle  to  be  of  the  same  period 
as  the  Cella,  whose  form  exists  still  in  many 
places  of  Greece  without  even  a  column.  The 
peristylar  Enclosure  of  the  temple  wall  was  the 


THE  HELLENIC  PERIOD.  171 

last  to  develop,  and  this  complete  develop- 
ment of  it  appeared  decisively  first  in  the  Greek 
colonies,  as  we  shall  see  later. 

But  such  was  the  first  separation  of  the  Hel- 
lenic world  which  made  it  distinct  from  its  ante- 
cedent Oriental  condition.  Homer  shows  Greece 
divided  into  many  independent  communities 
which,  however,  reveal  their  common  character 
in  their  union  against  Troy.  Those  Cyclopean 
town-walls  have  protected  and  fostered  a  thou- 
sand self-reliant  City-States  great  and  small, 
each  being  jealous  of  its  own  separate  autono- 
mous existence.  Still  they  were  Greeks,  all  of 
them,  and  the  muster-roll  in  the  Second  Book 
of  the  Iliad  counts  them  up  one  by  one  as  they 
took  their  places  in  the  great  expedition  against 
the  Orient.  But  the  work  is  accomplished,  Troy 
is  destroyed,  these  communal  units  return  to 
their  former  condition  when  a  new  separation 
takes  place. 

III.  This  is  an  inner  separation,  very  different 
from  that  outer  one  revealed  at  Troy.  Its  crisis 
:s  seen  in  what  is  called  the  Doric  migration 
from  Northern  Greece  into  the  Peloponnesus. 
An  obscure  semi-mythical  event  as  narrated  by 
the  Greek  historians,  yet  with  a  most  important 
historic  kernel:  this  is  the  separation  of  the 
Greek' sto.  k  or  the  most  advanced  portion  thereof 
into  two  chief  branches,  the  Doric  and  the  Ionic, 
which    separation     is   not    known    to    Homer. 


172  AMGHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

There  were  other  branches  besides  these  two,  but 
they  were  of  much  less  significance.  Such  is  the 
fact  now  arising  which  runs  through  and  deter- 
mines Greek  history,  poetry,  art,  institutions, 
all  of  which  henceforth  bifurcate  into  a  Doric  or 
Ionic  trend.  Specially  Architecture  will  project 
two  lines  of  Temples  down  the  ages  under  the 
name  of  Doric  and  Ionic.  The  third,  the  Corin- 
thian Order,  comes  later. 

Both  these  branches,  Doric  and  Ionic,  belong  to 
continental  Hellas,  and  will  there  unfold  an  inner 
tension  which  finally  drives  each  side  to  a  fresh 
migration,  wherein  comes  to  light  another  weighty 
fact  of  Hellenic  history,  colonization.  The 
Greeks  at  this  period  show  themselves  supremely 
a  colonizing  people,  and  each  colony  is  not  a  de- 
pency  of  the  mother  country,  but  a  new  auton- 
omous City-State.  Thus  the  Greek  community 
becomes  marvelously  productive  of  other  com- 
munities like  itself,  which,  however,  sweep 
beyond  the  limits  of  old  Hellas  and  settle  in 
foreign  lands,  thus  showing  themselves  adven- 
turesome, aspiring,  limit-transcending.  Colo- 
nization always  takes  the  daring,  progressive 
spirits  for  its  work,  those  who  are  willing  to  face 
the  unknown  —  the  unknown  sea,  the  unknown 
land,  the  unknown  foe.  Such  bands  of  strong 
souls  central  Greece  kept  throwing  out  of  itself 
for  several  centuries  toward  all  points  of  the 
compass  (probably  from  about  9-800  B.  C). 


TEE  HELLENIC  PEEIOD.  173 

In  this  movement  the  two  branches  of  the 
Greek  stock  showed  their  inherent  opposition  by 
sending  their  chief  colonies  in  opposite  directions, 
the  Doric  to  the  West  in  Sicily  and  Southern 
Italy,  the  Ionic  to  the  East  along  the  coast  of 
Asia  Minor  with  its  adjacent  islands.  Out  of 
this  historic  background  now  rises  the  supreme  fact 
of  Greek  Architecture :  the  Doric  Temple  with 
its  columns  arose  and  flourished  in  these  Western 
colonies,  while  the  Ionic  temple  in  deep  corre- 
spondence arose  and  flourished  quite  at  the  same 
time  in  the  Eastern  colonies.  Such  is  the  strik- 
ing historic  symmetry  in  the  origin  and  develop- 
ment of  these  two  Greek  Temples,  or  rather 
these  two  lines  of  Greek  Temples,  whose  further 
double  evolution  proceeds  upon  these  two  lines 
toward  the  one  culminating  center  of  the  Hellenic 
race. 

Each  set  of  these  colonies  having  moved  forth 
from  the  original  home  and  formed  the  outlying 
rim  of  the  Hellenic  world,  had  to  grapple  with 
a  desperate  task.  Each  had  to  face  a  conflict 
with  the  Orient  to  whose  peoples  they  were  ■ 
neighbors.  In  the  West  the  Doric  cities  of 
Sicily  impinged  upon  the  Carthaginian  empire 
which  had  also  Sicilian  colonies.  In  the  East 
the  Lydian  king  Croesus  carried  on  a  struggle 
with  the  Greek  cities  of  the  Asiatic  coast,  which 
were  finally  subjugated  by  the  Persian  king 
Cyrus.     Now  it  was  during   this  conflict   long- 


174  ABCHITE  0  TUBE  —  EUROPE  AN. 

continued  that  Greek  Architecture  assumed  its 
normal  character  in  the  colonnaded  Temple.  The 
energy  called  forth  by  the  conflict  between 
Hellenism  and  Orientalism  also  called  forth  the 
highest  manifestations  of  the  Greek  spirit  of 
that  time  in  Art,  Science,  and  Philosophy  which 
now  definitely  began  as  original  Hellenic  crea- 
tions. On  the  borderland  of  the  Greek  world 
was  the  first  flowering  of  those  spiritual  dis- 
ciplines which  from  that  moment  to  this,  thrx>ugh 
the  whole  line  of  European  development,  have 
not  ceased  to  be  cultivated. 

At  the  same  time  these  colonies  are  learning 
and  appropriating  much  from  their  enemies.  In 
all  their  work  and  thought  an  Oriental  influence 
can  be  traced  which  they  have  taken  up  and 
transformed.  For  the  Orient  had  a  very  ancient 
civilization,  particularly  Egypt,  then  in  its  de- 
cline, or  rather  in  its  final  decline.  We  have  to 
see  that  the  Greek  column,  the  most  famous  and 
lasting  form  of  Greek  Architecture,  was  derived 
and  evolved  out  of  an  Egyptian  prototype.  In 
fact  it  may  be  deemed  one  of  the  chief  functions 
of  these  frontier  colonies  that  they  formed  a 
bridge  for  the  transfer  of  Oriental  culture  into 
Europe,  which  culture,  however,  they  decidedly 
modified. 

We  place,  then,  the  first  emphatic  appearance 
of  the  Peristyle  in  the  colonies,  where  it  became 
national .     If  there  was  a  Peristyle  in  continental 


THE  HELLENIC  PERIOD.  175 

Greece  before  the  colonial  epoch,  it  is  not  known. 
We  have  already  stated  that  the  Peristyle  of  the 
Herseon  at  Olympia  is  post-colonial,  though  the 
contrary  opinion  has  been  held  by  archaeologists, 
without  proof,  in  our  judgment.  The  Greek 
colonies  in  their  conflict  with  the  Oriental  peo- 
ples, developed  the  completed  union  of  individual 
columns  in  the  form  of  the  self -returning  Peri- 
style, which  is  an  image  of  their  own  united  civic 
life  necessitated  by  their  circumstances.  Such  a 
necessity  did  not  in  early  times  press  upon  con- 
tinental Greece,  but  it  will  come,  particularly 
when  the  Oriental  foe  has  broken  through  the 
borderland  of  colonies  to  the  East. 

If  there  were  examples  of  the  Peristyle  in  con- 
tinental Greece  before  the  period  of  colonization, 
they  were  sporadic,  accidental,  and  must  have 
been  few,  since  all  traces  of  them  have  so  com- 
pletely perished.  Regarding  the  multitudinous 
remains  of  Doric  Temples  in  Sicily,  we  have  to 
conclude  that  these  had  become  there  a  national 
product,  the  object  of  supreme  effort  for  every 
city.  In  old  Greece  Corinth  alone  has  some 
ruins  of  one  of  these  early  Doric  Temples,  and 
it  probably  sprang  from  intercourse  with  Sicily. 
We  have  already  noted  that  in  Egypt  there  is  a 
decided  suggestion  of  the  Peristyle  in  the  Mamm- 
eisi,  but  it  was  never  truly  nationalized  in  that 
country.  It  must,  accordingh%  be  affirmed  that, 
as  far  as  present  information  goes,  the    Greek 


176  ABCHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

colonies  of  Sicily  made  the  peristjlar  Temple  a 
work  of  Hellenic  patriotism. 

IV.  The  next  important  fact  which  meets  us 
is  that  Greek  Architecture,  having  started  and 
taken  shape  on  the  colonial  rim  of  Hellas  begins 
to  move  toward  the  center  of  continental  Hellas 
for  its  final  complete  development,  which  it  at- 
tains at  Athens  after  the  Persian  War.  Thus 
we  behold  a  centripetal  movement  of  Greek 
Architecture,  from  the  colonies  back  to  the 
original  Hellenic  home  in  continental  Hellas. 
A  similar  movement  can  be  observed  in  Greek 
Philosophy  which  also  sprang  up  in  the  Ionic 
borderland  of  Asia  Minor,  and  flourished  like- 
wise in  the  Doric  colonies  of  Southern  Italy  and 
Sicily,  before  concentrating  and  culminating  at 
Athens  in  Socrates,  Plato,  and  Aristotle.  In  a 
spiritual  parallel  with  these  greatest  Greek  phi- 
losophers and  at  nearly  the  same  time  with  their 
appearance,  Athens  will  rear  the  supreme  Greek 
Temple,  and  will  produce  the  greatest  Greek 
plastic  and  dramatic  Art.  Architecture  thus 
shares  in  the  spiritual  movement  of  the  whole 
Hellenic  race  after  the  defeat  of  the  Orient,  and 
mirrors  in  its  edifices  just  that  lofty  national 
spirit.  Particularly  the  Greek  temple  becomes 
the  home  and  the  expression  of  the  Greek  insti- 
tutional world  which  repelled  the  assault  of 
Persia,  and  asserted  its  freedom.  At  a  later 
time  we   shall   see  that  Hellenistic  Architecture 


THE  HELLENIC  PERIOD.  177 

will  move  in  the  opposite  direction,  will  turn 
outward  from  Greece  and  become  centrifugal, 
raying  forth  to  the  East  and  West,  over  the  vast 
empires  of  Macedon  and  Rome. 

The  centripetal  movement  of  Greek  Architec- 
ture embraces  a  period  of  not  fully  two  hundred 
years.  The  oldest  Temple  in  Sicily  which  shows 
the  completed  architectural  Norm  is  probably 
at  Selinus  and  must  be  dated  a  little  before  600 
B.  C.  The  Parthenon  was  finished  about  438 
B.C.  Between  these  two  Temples  we  may  con- 
ceive a  row  of  Doric  columns  passing  through 
the  ascending  stages  of  their  evolution  toward 
perfection. 

In  like  manner  we  may  conceive  a  row  of  Ionic 
columns  marching  down  the  same  centuries  from 
Asia  Minor  and  the  adjacent  islands  to  the 
Acropolis  of  Athens,  taking  their  places  in  the 
Propylaea  and  in  the  Erechtheion.  To  be  sure 
these  early  Ionic  Temples  have  for  some  reason 
.now  completely  vanished,  or  possibly  have  not 
yet  been  dug  up,  for  they  seem  to  lie  covered 
with  earth  more  deeply  than  the  Sicilian  Temples. 

V.  The  beginnings  of  Greek  Architecture  are 
connected  with  another  peculiar  Greek  appear- 
ance :  the  lawgiver.  Solon,  the  Athenian,  was 
at  his  work  about  600  B.  C,  being  a  distinct 
historical  character,  while  Lycurgus  the  Spar- 
tan is  usually  put  several  centuries  earlier,  and 
has  a  tendency  to  become  mythical.     About  the 

12 


178  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

age  of  Solon  and  later,  the  lawgiver  appeared  in 
many  Greek  cities,  so  that  he  forms  an  epoch,  a 
stage  of  consciousness  in  the  development  of  the 
Greek  people,  quite  cotemporaneous  with  its 
architectural  development. 

The  lawgiver  endeavored  to  formulate  the 
universal  rule  of  conduct  for  all  the  citizens  of 
the  community.  They  were  to  adjust  their  lives 
and  particularly  their  dealings  with  one  another 
according  to  a  certain  Norm  which  all  were  to 
follow.  Thus  the  City  obtained  order,  a  certain 
Greek  proportion.  Every  individual  had  to  obey 
the  law  to  the  end  of  sharing  in  the  communal 
life.  Now  it  was  a  great  event  in  Greek  history 
when  this  law  was  found,  formulated,  and  ap- 
plied. Thus  each  little  town  might  become  a 
work  of  art,  plastic  in  its  way. 

Very  analogous  was  the  Greek  Temple  which 
also  received  its  Norm  about  the  same  time. 
Every  part  of  the  building  was  to  be  adjusted  to 
the  law  of  the  whole.  If  it  was  made  larger  in 
any  part,  the  entire  work  had  to  be  increased 
in  proportion.  If  a  Temple  were  lengthened,  it 
had  also  to  be  broadened  and  heightened.  In 
other  words  it  was  organic,  like  the  human  body, 
which  cannot  have  long  legs  and  short  arms 
without  a  violation  of  the  fundamental  law  of 
proportion.  On  this  ground  Vitruvius  (III.  1.) 
compares  the  Greek  Temple  with  the  human 
organism.     To  be  sure  the    law  of    proportion 


TEE  HELLENIC  PEBIOD.  179 

both  in  the  human  and  the  architectural  body  is 
not  absolutely  rigid,  it  can  and  must  vary  within 
limits.  Still  in  these  variations  we  must  behold 
the  one  Norm,  elastic  indeed,  but  permanent. 

Vitruvius  was  a  Eoman  architect  who  lived 
about  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  and 
was  trained  in  the  precepts  of  the  Greeks.  It 
is  interesting  to  read  this  ancient  testimony  to 
their  way  of  working.  *'  Proportion  is  the  due 
adjustment  of  the  size  of  the  different  parts  to 
each  and  to  the  whole."  This  is  probably  a 
translation  of  some  Greek  treatise,  as  it  is  more 
to  the  point  than,  most  of  the  statements  *  in 
Vitruvius.  Thus  every  member  of  the  Temple 
becomes  symmetrical,  being  measured  by  a  com- 
mon unit  of  measure  called  the  modulus.  This 
was  taken  from  the  lower  part  of  the  column, 
being  half  of  its  diameter.  The  height  of  the 
column,  the  intercolumniation,  the  entablature 
and  its  divisions  were  all  adjusted  to  this  under- 
lying unit  of  measure,  which  thus  controlled  the 
whole  structure.  The  smallest  members  as  well 
as  the  largest  obeyed  the  common  law  of  the  whole 
Temple,  which  was  itself  an  ordered  community 
of  architectural  members. 

Thus  we  may  see  how  the  lawgiver  in  his  realm 
corresponded  to  the  architect  in  his  realm,  and 
how  both  must  be  the  outgrowth  of  the  same  great 
national  movement  which  orders  a  society  of  in- 
dividual members  after  one  fundamental  princi- 


180  ABCHITECTUBE  — EUROPEAN. 

pie  or  law.  The  same  fact  is  seen  in  another 
Oreek  art,  Sculpture,  which  employs  chiefly  the 
human  body  for  its  representations.  **  From  the 
chin  to  the  top  of  the  forehead  is  one-tenth  of 
the  length  of  the  normal  man"  (Vitruvius). 
The  arms,  the  fingers,  the  legs,  the  feet,  in  fine 
every  member  has  its  mathematical  relation  to 
the  whole  body  formulated ;  such  a  body  became 
the  Norm  of  Sculpture,  and  was  made  into  a 
famous  statue  by  a  Greek  artist  and  called  '  *  the 
canon."  Such  was  the  attempt  to  make  real  the 
ideal  man  in  those  antique  ages.  It  reflects  the 
Greek  State  with  its  Law,  which  sought  to  train 
all  the  members  of  the  Social  Whole  to  an  har- 
monious institutional  life,  in  which  each  individ- 
ual realizes  according  to  his  ability  the  modulus 
of  the  Whole. 

VI.  Thus  we  reach  down  to  the  fact  that 
Architecture  has  as  its  fundamental  task  to  build 
the  home  of  associated  Man.  Particularly  does 
such  a  thought  impress  us  in  the  early  temples 
of  Greece,  which  obey  so  perfectly  in  every  part 
their  organic  law.  The  God  is  placed  in  his  own 
abode,  which  he  in  a  sense  has  built  for  himself 
through  his  human  instruments.  He  is  indeed 
the  Will  of  the  whole  community  as  one,  being 
made  personal  in  a  divine  shape  (the  statue) 
and  given  a  habitation. 

There  was  a  time  when  the  individual  member 
was   forbidden    to  employ  the  distinctive  forms 


TEE  HELLENIC  PEBIOD.  181 

of  the  Temple  for  his  own  private  house,  for 
instance  the  colonnade .  That  was  the  dwelling- 
place  of  the  institutional  spirit,  not  of  any 
individual,  unless  he  became  the  tyrant  of  his 
city  and  usurped  the  function  of  the  Social 
Whole.  Seldom  indeed  do  we  know  the  name 
of  these  early  architects,  especially  the  Doric. 
They  as  individuals  are  one  with  their  work, 
absorbed  in  it  like  other  members  of  the  com- 
munity. Later  there  will  be  a  change  in  this 
respect  along  with  other  corresponding  changes. 

And  yet  this  Greek  community,  building  its 
communal  spirit  into  the  Temple,  is  acting  under 
a  larger  command  than  its  own.  It  is  obeying 
another  stronger,  higher  law  than  its  own.  The 
Egyptian  built  his  Temple  in  quite  a  different 
way,  yet  in  obedience  to  the  divine  behest.  Is 
there  a  deity  common  to  Greek  and  Egyptian, 
yet  above  both?  Or  a  law  which  includes  both 
these  peoples,  and  which  will  include  others  yet 
to  come?  The  Greek  Temple  rises,  blooms,  de- 
clines ;  the  God  after  dwelling  in  it  hundreds  of 
years  with  content,  will  move  out  of  it  and  order 
another  Temple  to  be  built  fit  for  his  reception. 

Still  the  Greek  Temple  is  the  beautiful  home 
of  the  Spirit  which  produced  the  Greek  City- 
State,  with  its  order,  its  civic  law,  its  ethical  in- 
dividual. If  we  consider  what  kind  of  a  social 
unit  that  old  Pelasgic  masonry  environed  and 
reflected,  we  think  of  the  early  Village  Commu- 


182  ARCHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN, 

nit  J  in  which  man  is  not  yet  separated  from  the 
soil  on  which  he  lives,  and  is  unconsciously  one 
with  his  institutional  center.  The  column  is  not 
yet  thrown  out  and  made  to  stand  forth  singly 
in  the  world,  and  still  be  united  with  other  col- 
umns. There  is  as  yet  no  individualizing  of 
property  or  even  of  the  Self.  The  transition 
from  the  Cyclopean  town-wall  to  the  Hellenic 
Temple  corresponds  to  a  great  social  change,  the 
transition  into  the  Greek  world  proper.  Already 
we  have  connected  the  rise  of  the  column  with 
the  dawn  of  a  new  consciousness  of  selfhood, 
which  began  to  appear  far  back  in  Egypt,  but 
which  was  taken  up  by  Greece  and  specially  de- 
veloped. Man  has  to  be  individualized  in  order 
to  individualize  the  column,  or  to  give  to  prop- 
erty individual  ownership.  Still  all  these  forms 
of  individuality  must  be  associated  and  thus 
make  institutions.  Perhaps  the  best  image  of 
Greek  association  is  the  columnar  Peristyle, 
which  is  taken  by  man  for  his  institutional  build- 
ings even  to  this  day.  Pelasgic,  proto-European 
Tiryns  has  been  dug  up  by  Schliemann ;  we  see 
a  vast  architectural  shell  out  of  which  the  life 
long  ago  departed  at  the  appearance  of  the  Hel- 
lenic City-State;  the  latter,  however,  has  in  its 
turn  become  a  ruin.  The  vital  principle  in 
these  great  structures  now^  empty  was  the  social 
institution  which  originally  built  them  for  its 
abode. 


THE  HELLENIC  PEBIOD.  183 

VII.  Having  thus  traced  the  historic  elements 
which  unfold  into  the  Hellenic  Period  of  Classic 
Architecture,  we  must  next  look  at  the  product, 
the  completed  building,  the  Greek  Temple.  The 
uncivilized  and  civilized  contributions,  the  Aryan 
and  the  Egyptian  ingredients,  have  been  passed 
through  the  alembic  of  the  new  Greek  institu- 
tional world  and  transformed  into  a  new  struc- 
ture, truly  the  genetic  one  of  European  Archi- 
tecture. What  is  its  constitution?  Can  we  find 
not  merely  its  separate  forms,  but  also  its  pro- 
cess? For  it  is  or  was  an  organic  thing,  endowed 
with  its  own  peculiar  life. 

In  order  to  bring  out  the  foregoing  points  we 
shall  look  at  the  Hellenic  Temple  under  three 
different  aspects,  or  rather  behold  it .  in  three 
separate  stages  which  make  its  process  or  inner 
constitution. 

A.  The  Hellenic  N'orm.  Every  Hellenic 
Temple  is  Hellenic  through  an  archetypal  form 
or  idea  which  underlies  it  and  really  creates  it. 
This  we  shall  call  its  Norm,  in  which  all  Greek 
Temples  are  one. 

B.  The  Hellenic  Orders.  The  Norm  though 
it  be  one,  has  also  division  within  itself,  and 
separates  into  its  essential  varieties  which  are 
named  Orders.  There  are  three,  Doric,  Ionic, 
Corinthian,  which  we  shall  again  find  forming 
a  process  within  themselves. 

C.  The  Hellenic   City.     These  three   Orders 


184  ABCHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN.      . 

are  employed  in  different  structures  of  the  same 
locality,  and  are  often  combined  in  the  same 
structure.  Thus  a  collection  of  buildings  for 
various  purposes  is  brought  together  within  a 
new  Enclosure,  that  of  the  Acropolis,  or  possibly 
of  the  entire  city  wall.  Such  an  architectural 
Whole  arose  specially  at  Athens,  but  likewise  in 
other  places  of  Greece,  diversified  in  many  ways 
through  the  different  Orders,  yet  patterned  after 
the  one  underlying  Hellenic  Norm,  of  which  the 
Hellenic  City  becomes  the  complete  manifesta- 
tion and  reality. 

In  these  three  stages  we  behold  the  workings 
of  the  Hellenic  Norm,  which  unfolds  through  the 
Orders  and  determines  the  Architecture  of  the 
Hellenic  City,  whose  every  public  building, 
though  different  from  the  rest,  reveals  in  com- 
mon with  them  the  one  Norm  which  unifies  all 
the  important  edifices  into  an  architectural 
totality. 

At  first  this  Hellenic  Norm  was  applied  to 
the  Temple,  the  home  of  the  religious  insti- 
tution. But  it  passed  to  other  structures,  to  pub- 
lic buildings,  which  exist  also  for  the  institu- 
tional life  of  the  people.  Thus  the  Temple 
even  in  Greece  became  secularized,  and  this 
tendency  rose  to  be  the  dominant  one  in  imperial 
Rome.  Such  a  movement  was  in  the  natural 
order  of  evolution.  The  Hellenic  Temple  be- 
comes the  mother  of  all  the  institutional  Archi- 


THE  HELLENIC  NOBM.  185 

lecture  of  Europe,  both  religious  and  secular. 
The  different  forms  of  associated  Man  reach 
back  to  that  one  Spirit  who  associates  him,  and 
whose  edifice  will  be  the  Norm  of  all  other  insti- 
tutional edifices.  And  now  we  shall  devote 
some  study  to  this  Norm  specially. 


A.  The  Hellenic  Norm. 

This  is  the  eternal  element  in  all  Architecture 
which  can  be  called  Greek.  We  might  name  it 
in  Platonic  speech  the  Idea  of  which  every  par- 
ticular Temple  is  the  sensuous  manifestation.  It 
is  the  universal  principle  which  is  the  soul  in  all 
its  individual  forms.  It  is  the  architectural  unit 
in  all  variety.  It  is  not  a  crystallized  pattern  or 
scheme  which  has  simply  to  be  copied,  but  a 
genetic  archetype  freely  producing  shapes  of 
itself  indeed,  but  each  with  an  individuality 
wholly  its  own. 

This  architectural  Norm  is  a  distinct  creation 
and  expression  of  Greek  Spirit.  Wherever  this 
Spirit  built  a  Home  for  itself,  it  took  the  peri- 
stylar  Temple  as  its  only  worthy  Enclosure.  On 
the  Eastern  rim  of  the  Greek  world,  and  on  the 
Western  rim  in  Sicily,  the  same  basic  Norm  comes 
to  light.  The  Dorian  employs  it  as  well  as  the 
Ionian,  in  spite  of  their  antagonisms.  Thus  the 
Norm  reaches  down  to  the  common  soul  of  the 


186  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN . 

entire  Hellenic  race  and  utters  it  in  Architecture 
at  the  greatest  epoch  of  its  history.  The  inner- 
most Greek  Self  builds  outwardly  its  own 
character,  and  also  its  process,  in  the  Greek 
Temple. 

We  hold,  therefore,  that  the  Hellenic  archi- 
tectural Norm,  being  the  genetic,  constructive 
Idea  of  all  Greek  building,  must  be  conceived  as 
a  process,  and  its  divisions  are  really  the  stages 
of  this  process.  These  stages  form  the  three 
striking  divisions  of  the  total  Temple.  Again 
let  the  reader  observe  this  triune  movement  of 
forms  which  is  seen  in  all  parts  of  Greek  Archi- 
tecture large  and  little.  It  manifests  so  easily 
and  naturally  its  psychical  origin  and  organization 
that  its  innermost  divisions  seem  almost  super- 
ficial.    These  divisions  are  as  follows. 

(I.)  The  Peristyle^  the  self-returning  row  of 
columns  which  constitutes  the  outer  vertical  En- 
closure of  the  Temple,  whose  essential  principle 
is  to  be  up-bearing.  Its  direction  is  outward,  and 
through  the  upright  column  it  speaks  to  and  of 
Man. 

(II.)  The  Cella,  the  oblong  walled  house 
which  is  inside  the  Peristyle,  and  constitutes  the 
inner  Enclosure  of  the  Temple.  The  wall  has  a 
divided  duty:  it  is  the  completely  enclosing  prin- 
ciple, yet  is  also  up-bearing  for  roof  and  ceiling 
as  well  as  strongly  down-bearing  with  its  own 
weight.     Its  direction  is  inward  to  the  God,  for 


THE  HELLENIC  NOUM.  187 

whom  the  whole  structure  is  built  as  a  dwelling- 
place. 

(III.)  TJie  Entablature,  the  cover  (roof  and 
ceiling)  of  the  Temple  in  its  external  manifesta- 
tion, connecting  with  the  Peristyle  and  complet- 
ing the  outer  Enclosure  of  the  house  with  the  roof. 
Its  character  is  horizontal,  and  hence  down-bear- 
ing in  contrast  to  the  up-bearing  verticalism  of 
the  Peristyle,  with  which  it  forms  a  unity  reveal- 
ing the  total  outward  Appearance  of  the  Tem- 
ple, its  visible  manifestation.  From  this  point 
of  view  the  Entablature  may  be  said  to  come  back 
to  the  outer  world  where  the  Peristyle  already 
stood,  and  to  show  the  side  of  Nature  in  its  pros- 
trate position,  in  its  submission  to  mere  gravity. 

It  is  a  suggestive  point  that  in  the  developed 
Greek  Temple,  the  procedure  of  the  construction 
of  it  was  Peristyle  first,  Cella  second,  and  then 
the  Covering  with  the  completed  Entablature. 
This  fact  we  see  strikingly  illustrated  in  the  un- 
finished Temple  at  Segesta  in  Sicily.  The  Cella 
was  never  built,  so  there  is  simply  the  outer  En- 
closure. The  columns  are  rounded  in  the  rou^h 
but  have  as  yet  no  flutings,  which  must  have 
been  chiseled  on  the  columns  standins:.  The 
city  of  Segesta  was  conquered  by  the  Cartha- 
ginians about  409  B.  C,  and  this  is  doubtless 
what  stopped  the  work  on  the  Temple,  which 
still  images  in  its  unfinished  ruin  that  old  con- 
flict between  Greece  and  the  Orient.     In  historic 


188  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN', 

development,  however,  the  Cella  was  first,  while 
the  Peristyle  was  the  last  to  unfold,  being  the 
most  distinctive  Hellenic  contribution  to  Archi- 
tecture, even  if  siiggested  in  old  Egypt. 

It  is  well  to  note  again  that  the  Column  and 
with  it  the  Peristyle  is  up-bearing  essentially, 
even  if  it  too  is  heavy  and  bears  downward.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  Architrave  and  with  it  the 
Entablature  is  down-bearing  essentially,  though  it 
likewise  has  to  sustain  the  burden  above.  In 
other  words  there  is  always  a  process  in  each  of 
these  forms  with  its  opposite,  and  it  is  this 
process  which  gives  life,  when  brought  out 
adequately  by  the  artist. 

In  its  way,  which  is  the  architectural  way,  the 
Hellenic  Norm  expresses  the  supreme  Norm,  the 
Norm  of  the  Universe  in  its  threefold  totality  — 
Man,  God,  Nature.  The  columnar  Peristyle 
with  its  line  of  associated  individuals,  suggests 
Man,  the  free  erect  Man,  co-operating  in  a  social 
Whole.  On  the  other  hand  the  enclosed  Cella 
shuts  the  soul  off  from  the  outward  world  and 
turns  it  inward  to  commune  with  the  God  who  is 
present  in  his  statue.  But  the  Entablature  shows 
the  passage  from  the  inside  to  the  outside  both 
structurally  and  in  its  mouldings;  it  is  heavy 
Nature  recumbent,  yielding  to  gravity,  manifest- 
ing by  its  horizontal  posture  its  material  charac- 
ter. Thus  in  the  Greek  Temple,  when  we  reach 
down  to  its  deepest  source,  we  may  see  a  con- 


TEE  HELLENIC  NOBM,  189 

structive  form  of  the  Absolute  Process,  a  reflec- 
tion of  the  movement  of  the  All  —  Man,  God, 
Nature.  The  same  Norm  is  found  in  Greek 
Philosophy,  notably  in  Plato  and  Aristotle  (see 
our  Ancient  European  Philosophy,  suh  voc), 
who  express  it  not  in  shapes  of  stone  but  in  the 
abstract  categories  of  Thought.  Still  both  kinds 
of  utterance  come  from  one  and  the  same  su- 
premely governing  Spirit  and  reveal  its  process 
(the  Pampsychosis).  The  Greek  Temple  is  the 
architectural  image  of  the  Universe,  purer, 
simpler,  more  transparent  than  is  found  in  any 
other  structure  built  by  man. 

Such  is  our  little  paralellopipedon  capped  by 
a  triangular  prism,  looking  more  like  a  toy  than 
anything  else  at  first  glance,  like  a  box  with  a 
double-slanting  cover  set  upon  an  elevation. 
But  when  we  see  what  became  of  it,  and  follow 
out  its  evolution  for  twenty-five  centuries,  we 
shall  discover  the  meaning  which  lies  hidden  in 
its  simple  shape. 

This  Norm  may  indeed  be  called  a  thing  of  the 
Imagination.  But  whoever  does  not  use  his 
Imagination  in  Architecture,  had  better  let  this 
Art  alone,  and  also  the  other  Arts.  These 
forms,  springing  up  so  diversely  and  so  cause- 
lessly to  the  outer  eye,  are  all  to  be  carried  back 
by  the  Imagination  to  the  Mother-form,  to  the 
originative  Idea.  But  at  first  they  lie  before  us 
in  external  vision, as  separate,  individual  objects 


190  AEOHITECTUBE  —  EVBOPEAK. 

of  sense.  How  do  they  get  to  be?  The  build- 
ing must  in  its  way  be  alive,  and  not  only  alive 
but  creative,  sending  forth  its  members  like  an 
organic  thing.  This  constructive  activity  is 
primarily  to  be  seen  by  the  creative  Imagination 
which  is  cognate  with  it,  and  so  can  enter  into 
the  soul  of  the  edifice,  and  re-create  the  process 
of  the  same,  which  is  also  its  own  essentially. 
The  Ego  of  the  observer  is  to  penetrate  to  the 
original  germ  or  the  Norm,  and  see  it  unfolding 
into  its  visible  shapes,  and  thus  to  follow  out  the 
movement  of  the  Architect  of  the  ages.  This 
gives  the  Psychology  of  Architecture,  in  which 
the  psychical  process  of  the  Universe  is  seen 
clothing  itself  in  the  manifold  constructive  forms 
which  arise  in  time,  but  which  ultimately  go  back 
to  the  one  Norm,  not  directly 'visible  in  itself 
yet  creative  of  all  that  is  visible .  Now  it  is  this 
Norm  which  the  Imagination  is  to  behold,  and 
behold  creatively  in  its  innermost  movement, 
both  Norm  and  Imagination  being  participants 
in  the  one  fundamental  process  of  the  All. 

The  student  may  well  devote  his  best  thought 
to  appropriating  this  Hellenic  Norm,  since  he 
must  now  get  hold  the  genetic  principle  of  all 
the  finest  edifices  which  he  sees  around  him. 
For  this  Norm  is  still  at  the  present  day  mar- 
velously  active,  creating  as  vigorously  as  of  old, 
often,  however,  in  combination  with  more  recent 
forms.     It  is  the  initiation  into  the  total  Temple 


TEE  EELLENIC  NOBM,  191 

of  European  Architecture,  into  the  thought  of 
the  Supreme  Architect  in  its  primal  productive 
shape.  And  if  our  student  be  philosophically 
inclined,  let  him  read  a  Dialogue  of  Plato  which 
sets  forth  the  Idea  or  Archetype  indwelling  the 
whole  sensuous  Cosmos.  Or  if  poetry  be  pre- 
ferred, let  a  drama  of  Sophocles  be  taken  (say 
the  Oedipus  or  the  Antigone)^  and  let  its  ideal 
Norm  be  compared  with  that  of  Hellenic  Archi- 
tecture. Thus  he  will  begin  to  behold  the  Norm 
of  Norms,  that  Universal  Norm  of  Greek  Spirit 
itself,  of  which  its  Architecture  is  but  one  ex- 
pression. 

(I.)  The  Peristyle.  —  The  most  obvious  as 
well  as  the  most  striking  element  of  the  Greek 
architectural  Norm  is  the  oblong  four-sided 
girdle  of  columns  which  constitute  its  first 
Enclosure  called  the  Peristyle  from  the  fact  that 
it  surrounds  with  its  colonnades  the  whole  struc- 
ture. We  have  already  noted  that  this  Peristyle 
must  be  regarded  as  the  first  significant  act  of 
European  Architecture  in  contrast  with  the  Ori- 
ental and  specially  the  Egyptian  Temple,  whose 
columns  are  here  thrown  outside  the  wall,  are 
manifested  to  the  world,  and  thus  constitute  the 
starting-point  of  the  grand  architectural  revela- 
tion for  the  future.  Let  us  always  remember 
that  the  Hellenic  Peristyle  is  not  simply  a  row  of 
columns  stopping  anywhere,  not  a  colonnade,  but 
a  row  sweeping  around  and  coming  back  to  itself- 


192  ARCHITECTURE  —EUROPEAN. 

thus  giving  a  sense  of  completeness  through  this 
self-returning  movement,  and  suggesting  an 
association  of  columnar  individuals. 

Another  fact  about  the  Peristyle  is  that  it  is 
everywhere  open,  though  it  also  encloses.  We 
may  call  it  a  series  of  entrances  running  around 
the  Cella,  and  inviting  everybody  to  come  under 
its  shelter  though  a  railing  sometimes  may  shut 
out  the  crowd.  This  invitation  is  given,  we  might 
say,  with  a  pleasant  smile  in  the  best  Greek 
Temples,  as  the  Theseion  and  the  Parthenon. 
Moreover'  the  columns  at  a  distance  seem  to  have 
movement,  to  be  engaged  in  a  kind  of  dance 
around  the  sanctuary  of  the  dehghted  God,  who 
beholds  this  chorus  of  white-dressed  Greek 
maidens  celebrating  Him  in  an  eternal  festival  of 
happy  marble.  Why  this  never-ending  joy  of 
Greek  columns?  We  hold  that  they  are  keeping 
a  jubilee  of  freedom,  having  been  released  from 
their  long  confinement  in  that  gloomy  temple  of 
Karnak;  or  possibly  these  Doric  columns  are 
celebrating  their  escape  from  the  tomb  itself, 
perchance  from  that  very  cemetery  of  Beni- 
Hassan  in  Egypt,  where  we  once  saw  them 
standing  at  the  entrance  and  evidently  trying  to 
get  out. 

Such  is  the  one  side,  properly  the  outside  of 
the  Peristyle,  but  there  is  another  side,  the  in- 
side, which  we  may  look  at  in  this  connection. 
The  guest   responding  to  the  very   cordial  and 


THE  HELLENIC  KOBM.  193 

literally  open  invitation,  freely  enters  at  any  place, 
and  then  runs  up  against  a  high  wall,  the  Cella. 
Thus  he  finds  the  Greek  limit,  he  can  be  admitted 
only  half  way,  the  freedom  of  entrance  is  not 
complete,  not  universal.  A  special  door  rather 
small  leads  into  the  Cella  which  contains  the 
God.  Such  is  here  the  image  of  the  Greek,  in- 
deed of  the  European  dualism:  liberation  on 
this  side,  exclusion  on  that.  Greece  had  slavery 
along  with,  or  rather  inside,  its  freedom,  aristoc- 
racy in  its  democracy,  the  privileges  of  birth 
in  its  widest  citizenship.  The  people  of  Athens 
were  really  an  aristocracy.  Still,  if  freedom  be 
the  grand  end  toward  which  humanity  is  march- 
ing, we  have  in  Greece  a  mighty  step  forward, 
which  is  reflected  in  her  Temple.  Far  back  in 
the  Pyramid  there  was  properly  no  entrance, 
this  being  closed  up  by  enormous  blocks  of  gran- 
ite, which  the  modern  explorer  has  removed  with 
great  difficulty,  when  he  has  been  able  to  find 
them.  At  Karnak  the  priests  might  enter  but 
not  the  people.  In  Hellas,  however,  we  are  get- 
ting free  outside,  though  much  remains  to  be 
done  inside  —  a  problem  which  Christianity  will 
grapple  with  later. 

It  is  a  phenomenon  which  excites  deep  wonder- 
ing and  rouses  to  much  reflection  that  the  Peri- 
style should  leap  forth  from  the  All-mother  so 
complete  at  the  start.  Yet  there  was  an  evolu- 
tion   through    partial   forms  of   the   Peristyle, 

13 


194  ARCHITECTURE  —  EUROPEAN'. 

though  these  in  Hellas  proper  seem  to  have  been 
few,  such  as  the  prostylos  and  amphiprostylos 
for  instance.  The  strong  inner  bent  of  Greek 
genius,  filled  with  the  Spirit  of  the  Ages,  com- 
pelled the  columnar  row  to  be  not  simply  lineal 
but  self-returning,  thus  embosoming  the  Cella 
or  inner  Temple  of  the  God  as  the  internal 
element  of  itself.  For  this  reason  the  Peristyle 
imparts  to  the  beholder  a  sense  of  completeness 
within  bounds,  the  idea  of  perfection  in  a  limited 
world,  or,  as  some  philosophers  say,  of  the 
infinite  in  the  finite.  Very  Greek  is  this  Peri- 
style, an  outburst  of  the  total  Hellenic  stock ; 
both  its  extremes,  the  Dorian  and  the  Ionian, 
far  apart  and  independently  of  each  other  seem- 
ingly, fling  it  out  of  themselves  nearly  at  the 
same  time,  so  that  it  must  have  lain  in  the 
original  creative  spirit  of  the  total  Greek  race. 
To  be  sure,  we,  looking  back  from  our  van- 
tage-ground, see  another  and  vaster  process  of 
which  this  Peristyle  and  all  Greek  Architecture 
and  the  entire  Greek  civilization  make  only  one 
stage.  We  see  that  the  whole  line  of  the  edifices 
of  the  ages  forms  one  huge  Temple  through 
which  the  reader  is  now  seeking  to  thread  his 
passage  and  to  behold  the  shapes  in  order. 
This  is  the  Temple  which  the  Universal  Spirit 
(the  Pampsychosis)  is  building  for  its  dwelling- 
place,  which  is  not  yet  finished  by  any  means, 
but  of  which  the  Greek  Peristyle  has  s  hown  it- 


THE  HELLEniG  NOBM.  195 

self  to  be  an  important  and  beautiful  member. 
So  we  may  say  that  the  Pampsychosis,  now  the 
All-builder,  has  taken  the  Greek  man  as  archi- 
tect, who  is  to  erect  the  Hellenic  portion  of  the 
Universal  Temple,  in  which  we  here  behold  with 
no  small  satisfaction  the  Peristyle. 

The  Peristyle  has  its  elements  or  stages. 
First  is  the  Column  taken  by  itself,  of  which 
Architecture  has  so  much  to  say.  But  the  Col- 
umn as  supporting  is  not  made  to  stand  alone ; 
hence  appears  the  tie-beam  with  its  two  columns 
or  the  traheate-columnar  Pattern  which  is  the 
archetypal  form  of  the  Peristyle,  or  the  primor- 
dial cell  whose  repetition  produces  it.  Such 
repetition  of  this  Pattern  brings  forth  the  OoU 
onnade^  which,  being  brought  back  into  its 
beginning  through  a  circular  or  rectangular  form, 
makes  the  Peristyle.  These  three  elements  we 
shall  consider  somewhat  more  fully. 

1.  The  Hellenic  Column,  This  is  usually  re- 
garded as  the  most  perfect  of  all  the  varieties  of 
the  Column,  that  culmination  of  it  to  which 
antecedent  forms  ascend,  and  from  which  later 
forms  proceed.  On  the  whole  the  Hellenic 
Column  is  the  favorite  piece  in  all  Architecture ; 
it  has  been  oftener  employed,  oftener  wooed  by 
contending  peoples  than  any  other  architectural 
beauty.  We  have  already  noted  its  first  distinct 
appearance  in  ancient  Egypt,  and  its  migration 
to  Hellas  where  it  came  to  its  classic  perfection. 


196  ABGHITECTUItE  —  EUROPEAN. 

As  the  Column  will  continue  its  evolution  down 
-,  to  the  present  time,  and  will  have  to  be  spoken 
of  again  very  frequently,  we  shall  here  give  briefly 
an  outline  of  its  members,  or  we  might  better 
say,  of  its  process,  which,  though  of  stone,  must 
be  grasped  as  suggesting  movement,  life,  organic 
self-activity.  It  is  true  that  a  column  may  be 
dead,  stone-dead  literally ;  but  that  is  the  fault  of 
the  artist.  The  columns  of  the  Parthenon,  seen 
at  a  distance,  appear  to  be  moving,  yea  to  be 
dancing,  like  that  before-mentioned  chorus  of 
white-dressed  Greek  maidens  circling  hand  in 
hand  at  a  happy  festival. 

The  Hellenic  Column,  taken  by  itself  in  its  own 
individual  development,  has  three  members,  the 
Base,  the  Shaft,  and  the  Capital.  Each  of  these 
again  has  its  own  process,  upon  which  we  may 
spend  a  word  or  two. 

(a)  The  Base  is  the  lower  part  of  the  Column 
which  rests  upon  the  pavement  of  the  Temple 
(Stylobat),  which  is  in  the  form  of  an  oblong 
rectangle.  The  Base  must  show  the  transition 
from  the  Stylobat  to  the  Shaft,  and  here  again 
are  marked  three  stages,  or  perchance  more,  since 
these  forms  may  be  repeated  several  times.  The 
Plinth  of  the  Base  is  the  square  block,  which  con- 
nects in  form  with  the  rectangular  below  it  and 
in  size  with  the  curvilinear  above  it.  The  Torus 
or  cushion  is  the  next  part,  round  but  bulged, 
hinting  the  superincumbent    weight.     The  next 


THE  HELLENIC  NOBM.  197 

important  part  bends  inward  and  is  called  the 
Scotia  which  indicates  a  kind  of  concentration 
for  a  new  up-bearing  effort.  These  are  the  main 
forms,  of  which  the  Torus  and  the  Scotia  are 
often  repeated  with  other  mouldings  such  as 
fillets  or  bands,  and  also  with  flutings  and  various 
decorations. 

We  may  see  suggested  in  these  forms  the 
living  interplay  between  the  up-bearing  and 
down-bearing  principles  which  are  brought  out 
in  the  Column,  and  belong  fundamentally  to  all 
Architecture.  The  stolid  Plinth  takes  its  load 
without  a  grimace,  showing  the  same  face  on 
each  side ;  but  the  Torus  swells  and  yields,  with 
a  sort  of  an  outcry  at  the  fearful  down-bearing 
burden  which  it  has  to  sustain ;  while  the  Scotia 
contracts  itself  for  a  tremendous  up-bearing 
strain,  which  properly  heralds  the  next  member, 
truly  the  weightiest  of  all,  the  Shaft.  The 
Greek  architect  took  delight  in  the  Base,  diver- 
sifying its  forms  in  a  kind  of  sportive  willful- 
ness, so  that  in  the  old  classic  Temples  of  Hellas 
probably  no  two  Bases  can  be  found  exactly 
alike. 

(5)  The  Shaft  is  the  middle  member  of  the 
Column  and  the  most  important ;  indeed  it  alone 
could  do  the  mere  up-bearing  part  without  the 
other  members.  Base  and  Capital.  In  that  case, 
however,  the  Column  would  lose  its  Greek  char- 
acter, its  expressiveness ;  it  would  be  but  an  un- 


198  AE  GHITE  C  TUBE  —  E  VB  OPE  AN, 

developed  pier,  quite  speechless,  unable  to  tell 
anything  about  itself.  It  would  lose  the  out- 
ward utterance  of  its  process,  which  has  to  reveal 
itself  in  these  three  members. 

But  the  Shaft  taken  by  itself  has  its  elements 
which  break  up  its  monotony  and  give  to  it  a 
subtle  movement.  First  comes  its  Rotundity, 
which  has  the  advantage  of  presenting  no  sharp 
corners  to  human  intercourse  going  on  about  it. 
But  the  great  fact  of  the  round  column  is  its 
complete  separation  from  the  wall,  and  from  the 
pier  which  still  partakes  of  the  wall  in  character. 
That  is,  the  column  is  individualized,  rounded 
out  in  itself  and  resting  upon  itself,  giving  forth 
distinctly  the  note  of  individuality.  In  its  way 
we  may  call  it  free,  the  supporting  principle 
being  liberated  and  made  to  stand  up  in  its  own 
right.  Another  element  of  the  Hellenic  Shaft  is 
what  is  called  the  JEntasis,  the  slight  increase  in 
diameter  for  about  one-third  its  height,  followed 
by  a  slight  decrease  till  the  Capital.  This  quite 
imperceptible  swell  suggests  the  inner  effort  of 
the  supporting  activity  by  a  sort  of  rise  and  fall, 
a  struggle  as  it  were  between  the  two  contending 
genii  in  the  column,  the  up-bearing  and  the 
down-bearing.  The  Entasis  is  said  also  to  cor- 
rect by  its  convexity  defects  of  vision  which 
would  result  from  a  regular  diminution  of  the 
column  from  bottom  to  top.  A  third  element 
of  the  Shaft  is  the  Fluting,  the  hollow  vertical 


THE  HELLENIC  NOBM.  199 

channels  seen  in  every  Greek  Column.  The  effect 
of  these  grooves  with  their  edges  is  to  carry  the 
eye  upward  irresistibly  along  the  numerous  per- 
pendicular lines,  thus  emphasizing  the  up-bear- 
ing principle  of  the  Column  with  overwhelming 
power.  In  this  way  the  Shaft,  after  an  inner 
struggle,  mounts  aloft  till  it  reaches  the  third 
and  final  member  of  the  Column. 

(c)  The  Capital,  This  member  indicates  the 
transition  from  the  vertical  Shaft  to  the  hori- 
zontal Architrave,  or  more  generally  from  the 
oblong  rectangle  below  (stylobat)  to  the  oblong 
rectangle  above  (the  ceiling)  which  is  supported 
primarily  by  the  Column.  As  the  Base  hints  the 
movement  into  the  Shaft,  so  the  Capital  hints 
the  movement  out  of  it,  with  somewhat  similar 
mouldings  but  inverted.  The  Capital  in  a  sense 
shows  a  return  to  the  starting-point  of  the  Base, 
namely  to  the  aforesaid  oblong  rectangle,  though 
this  is  in  the  one  case  below,  and  in  the  other 
above.  Thus  there  is  a  completeness  of  move- 
ment in  the  Column  which  is  one  source  of  the 
satisfaction  it  always  inspires.  It  comes  back 
to  itself,  if  not  in  a  circle,  at  least  through  a 
succession  of  forms,  of  which  the  first  (the 
Plinth)  resembles  in  shape  and  size  the  last  (the 
Abacus).  Thus  the  Hellenic  Column  not  only 
finishes  itself  but  imparts  the  sense  of  something 
finished  in  this  world. 

But  the  Capital  will  also  have  its  three  distinct 


200  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

stages,  though  with  many  variations.  First  is 
the  Necking  (technically  the  Gorgerin)  of  the 
Column,  whose  body  (or  Shaft)  is  now  endowed 
with  a  neck.  This  was  brought  about  in  differ- 
ent ways  in  the  different  Orders  and  often  in  dif- 
ferent Temples  of  the  same  Order.  The  sim- 
plest way  in  the  Doric  Column  was  by  cutting  a 
couple  of  grooves  at  right  angles  to  the  flutings, 
and  thus  indicating  that  the  upward  movement 
was  resisted,  was  in  fact  drawing  to  a  close  —  a 
faint  note  of  the  coming  horizontal  Architrave. 
Next  came  the  Echinus^  which  varied  much  in 
the  different  Orders  —  being  mostly  a  round  pro- 
truding cushion  in  the  Doric,  having  spiral- 
shaped,  paired  volutes  in  the  Ionic,  and  having 
single  volutes  with  leafao^e  in  the  Corinthian. 
In  fact  the  Capital  became  the  chief  member  dis- 
tingnishinor  the  three  Orders.  Third  was  the 
Abacus^  a  square  block  like  the  Plinth  in  the 
Doric,  but  of  varied  form  and  importance  in  the 
other  two  Orders. 

Such  is,  in  general,  the  Norm  of  the  Hellenic 
Column,  taking  into  account  its  common  elements 
and  omitting  as  much  as  possible  the  differences 
which  develop  out  of  it,  since  these  belong  rather 
to  the  consideration  of  the  Orders  which  come 
later. 

In  the  study  and  appreciation  of  the  Hellenic 
Column  the  main  point  is  to  see  and  to  feel  what 
we  have  called  its    process,  which,  even  if  petri- 


THE  HELLEma  NORM,  201 

fied  to  the  outer  eye,  must  be  set  to  going 
through  the  imagination.  Its  Base  is  essentially 
horizontal,  down-bearing,  yet  with  a  movement 
out  of  this  condition ;  the  Shaft  is  essentially 
vertical,  up-beacing,  and  gives  character  to  the 
whole  Column,  yet  it  has  likewise  its  inner* pro- 
cess, which  gradually  propels  it  to  the  horizontal 
Architrave  through  the  various  forms  of  the 
Capital.  The  up-bearing  Column  is  heard  at  last 
to  call  for  its  burden,  which  is  the  down-bearing 
prostrate  shapes  resting  upon  it  above  in  the 
Entablature. 

2.  The  traheate  -  columnar  Pattern,  The 
Greek  not  only  developed  the  single  Column, 
but  he  also  made  it  social  in  a  new  way,  estab- 
lishing a  kind  of  society  of  its  many  individuals. 
This  principle  of  columnar  association  we  seek 
to  characterize  in  its  germ  or  primal  type  by  the 
preceding  designation.  We  take  two  columns 
and  connect  them  by  superposing  a  long  block 
of  stone  called  the  tie-beam  (a  name  taken  from 
wooden  construction).  Every  columnar  row, 
including  the  Peristyle,  is  composed  of  repetitions 
of  this  form  wliich  is,  therefore,  the  unit  of 
association.  Observe  that  not  simply  the  iso- 
lated member,  or  the  individual  column  is  the 
typical  shape ;  this  requires  two  members  and 
the  bond  of  connection,  thus  being  married  and 
forming  a  sort   of   columnar   family.      We   call 


202  ABGHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN; 

it    trabeate  or  beamed    (united  by   a   trabs  or 
beam). 

The  next  step  is  to  observe  that  this  trabeate- 
columnar  Pattern  takes  the  shape  of  an  entrance. 
The  two  perpendicular  columns  upbear  the  hori- 
zontal beam  overhead;  through  the  opening 
man  passes  within.  In  fact  he  is  invited  to  enter 
by  the  wide  and  high  passage,  as  well  as  by  the 
mouldings  —  the  architectural  speech  —  of  the 
three  members.  The  two  columns  stand  apart 
to  let  the  outsider  go  inside  freely,  while  the 
beam  above  is  high  and  strong  so  that  he  can 
remain  erect  and  not  be  afraid  of  something 
coming  down  upon  his  head.  It  is  no  wonder 
that  this  opening  with  its  pleasant  welcome  has 
been  the  pattern  of  all  doors,  portals,  even 
windows,  down  to  the  present  time;  we  can  trace 
it  often  in  the  unpretentious  cottage  of  the 
laborer.  It  has  been  already  noted  that  the  Egyp- 
tian, being  so  exclusive,  shunned  the  entrance, 
and  hence  never  developed  its  architectural  form ; 
the  outside  was  not  to  get  inside  with  him,  but 
on  the  whole  to  remain  outside  as  unholy,  unin- 
itiated, unconsecrated.  On  the  other  hand  the 
Greek  Peristyle  is  a  line  of  entrances  one  after 
the  other.  The  Parthenon  has  seven  on  each 
front  and  sixteen  on  each  side.  Still  we  must 
not  forget  that  the  limiting  wall  is  also  found  in 
the  Greek  Temple,  though  inside. 

Moreover  with   the  tie-beam  is  introduced  the 


THE  EELLENIG  NOBM,  203 

horizontal  principle  which  at  last  reaches  the 
point  of  dominating  the  vertical  principle  of  the 
column .  Here  again  we  come  upon  a  limit  of 
Hellenic  Architecture:  it  cannot  widen  itself  out 
beyond  a  certain  bound  without  becoming  flat, 
heavy,  unideal,  without  losing  its  beautiful 
Greek  proportion.  We  can  study  this  effect  in 
Athens  at  the  present  day  in  the  remains 
of  three  Greek  temples.  The  Olympieion  is 
altogether  too  large  for  the  Hellenic  prototype, 
the  small  Tlieseion  is  happiest  example  of 
the  Hellenic  Temple ;  the  Parthenon  is  interme- 
diate in  size  between  the  two  preceding,  but  it  is 
a  question  if  it  is  not  a  little  too  large  in  plan  for 
the  Greek  ideal. 

With  the  tie-beam  the  down-bearing  principle 
enters  the  Hellenic  structure,  and  becomes  thus 
the  emphatic  counterpart  to  the  up-bearing 
principle  of  the  column.  Already  we  have  des- 
ignated Architecture  to  be  the  struggle  between 
these  two  principles,  which  struggle  shows 
itself  so  emphatically  at  the  start  in  the  Pyra- 
mid. It  is  the  artistic  function  of  the  Greek  to 
reveal  the  golden  mean  between  these  two  an- 
tagonistic principles  in  his  Temple  at  its  best. 
Yet  even  he  will  gradually  get  to  leaning  toward 
the  colossal  with  its  down-bearing  character,  as 
we  shall  see  later. 

Already  we  have  noticed  a  very  early  instance 
of  the  purely  trabeate  form  of  opening  in  Egypt. 


204  ABCHITECTUEE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

The  two  upright  stone  piers,  with  a  cross-beam 
likewise  of  stone,  are  found  as  a  pattern  in  the 
old  Temple  of  the  Sphinx  ( see  preceding  p.  105) . 
This  passed  through  the  evolutionary  stage  of 
Beni-Hassan,  and  thence  moved  to  Greece, 
where  it  becomes  the  explicit  trabeate-columnar 
Pattern  aforesaid.  Often  Greek  architecture  is 
called  trabeate  in  the  books  on  this  subject,  but 
such  a  designation  is  not  a  happy  one.  The 
Greek  Pattern  has  two  Columns  with  their  con- 
necting beam ;  it  is,  therefore,  trabeate-columnar, 
the  two  upright  piers  or  beams  having  been  devel- 
oped into  the  Hellenic  Column.  The  four-cor- 
nered monolithic  block  (in  the  Temple  of  the 
Sphinx),  has  been  rounded  and  fluted  and  other- 
wise enriched  with  a  varied  architectural  speech 
which  tells  its  supreme  upbearing  function  as  well 
as  reveals  what  may  be  called  its  inner  life,  its 
process  with  itself.  That  rounded  and  fluted 
Column  is  not  made  to  lie  down,  it  cannot  strictly 
be  prostrate  without  contradicting  its  own  nature 
expressed  in  its  upbearing  lines.  Nor  has  it  any 
side  to  rest  upon,  while  the  Architrave  or  tie-beam 
is  formed  for  lying  down  on  its  flat  side  rather 
than  for  standing  up  on  end.  Note  also  that  this 
Architrave  is  substantially  just  what  it  was  far 
back  in  old  Egypt,  not  having  progressed  a  step 
even  in  Hellas,  while  the  Column  has  had  the 
wonderful  development  already  mentioned. 

3.   The    Colonnade.   The    preceding    Pattern 


THE  HELLENIC  NOBM.  205 

being  reproduced  and  added  to  makes  a  line  of 
these  forms  which  is  called  a  Colonnade.  This 
line  usually  joins  two  structures,  and  hence  has 
no  inner  determination  as  regards  length.  The 
tie-beam  connects  Column  with  Column  indefi- 
nitely, and  may  be  stopped  anywhere  from  out- 
side. 

Such  an  indefinite  Colonnade,  however,  con- 
tradicts the  plastic,  definite  character  of  the 
Greek.  Undoubtedly  he  constructed  Colonnades, 
but  as  something  temporary,  incomplete,  im- 
mediately useful  in  the  market-place,  or  palaes- 
tra, for  commercial  and  otlier  intercourse.  But 
when  he  built  the  Temple  of  the  God,  as  a  struc- 
ture worthy  of  himself  and  of  his  nation  and  of 
his  deity,  he  made  the  Colonnade  definite,  or- 
ganic, self-returning,  so  that  it  became  the  Peri- 
style, encompassing  worthily  the  abode  of  the 
God  within,  being  itself  determined  from  within. 

The  question  has  come  up:  Is  the  Greek 
Peristyle  structural  or  ornamental?  It  is  not 
useful,  if  we  compare  it  with  the  inner  columns 
of  the  Temple  of  Karnak,  which  support  the  roof. 
The  Egyptian  would  say  in  accord  with  his  crite- 
rion that  the  Peristyle  was  unnecessary,  iuorganic, 
a  mere  external  layer  or  accretion  around  the 
Cella,  which  could  well  do  without  any  such  su- 
perfluous wrappage.  But  suppose  we  leave  away 
the  Peristyle  and  have  only  the  walled  Cella,  what 
becomes  of  our  Art?     We  are  simply  back  again 


^06  AnCBITECTURE  — EUROPE  Aft. 

in  old  Egypt,  the  architectural  act  of  Europe  is 
wiped  out  with  its  exteriorizing  of  the  Egyptian 
column.  Thus  we  come  to  the  fact  that  Archi- 
tecture is  an  expression  of  the  spirit  of  a  nation 
or  an  epoch ;  its  final  test  is  not  that  of  utility 
though  it  certainly  is  useful.  But  it  uses  utility, 
while  utility  cannot  use  it  as  some  pliant  tool. 
From  the  Egyptian  point  of  view  the  Peristyle  is 
purely  ornamental,  while  to  the  Greek  it  was 
structural  in  the  deepest  sense,  a  necessity  for 
national  existence.  Unless  Hellas  were  to  revert 
to  the  Valley  of  the  Nile  or  were  to  be  absorbed 
back  into  the  Orient,  the  Peristyle  had  to  be 
erected  for  self-defense,  as  well  as  for  defending 
the  Hellenic  Gods. 

But  the  Peristyle  taken  by  itself  encloses 
literally  nothing ;  hence  we  must  pass  to  what  is 
enclosing.  Looking  up  we  see  that  our  tie-beam 
is  supporting  another  beam  which  lies  at  right 
angles  to  it ;  this  we  may  specially  call  the  cross- 
beam which  makes  the  ceiling.  But  what  sup- 
ports the  other  end?  This  we  find  resting  upon 
a  wall,  whose  presence  has  already  been  noted, 
the  so-called  Cella,  the  inner  counterpart  to  the 
outer  Peristyle. 

Already  the  opinion  has  been  set  forth  that 
the  Peristyle  first  developed  in  the  Greek  colo- 
nies as  a  national  principle  of  Architecture.  Par- 
ticularly in  the  Doric  colonies  of  Sicily  the  many 
ruins  still  extant  declare  very  emphatically  the 


THE  HELLEmC  NOBM,  207 

patriotic  and  religious  zeal  which  manifested 
itself  in  building  Temples  to  the  Hellenic  Gods. 
These  Greek  settlements  were  themselves  a  kind 
of  Peristyle  of  colonies,  environing  the  mother- 
country  as  a  sacred  Cella  to  the  East,  West, 
North,  and  South.  They  were  thrown  out  singly 
like  columns,  autonomous,  independent,  yet 
connected  together  by  the  old  tie  of  common 
Hellenic  blood,  which  tie  was  the  most  ancient 
and  weakest  part  of  the  structure  (as  was  the 
actual  tie-beam  or  Architrave).  Columnization 
and  colonization  bore  great  resemblance  to  each 
other  in  the  Greek  world,  which  as  a  whole 
seemed  to  be  one  vast  Temple  with  a  colonial 
Peristyle  embosoming  the  small  continental 
Cella.*^ 

Egypt  never  threw  out  such  a  Peristyle  of 
colonies  or  of  columns,  but  kept  both  inside 
itself,  walled  up  with  enormously  thick  and  high 
walls  seemingly  to  prevent  them  from  getting 
out.  At  any  rate  Hellas  does  just  the  contrary, 
and  therein  is  the  overture  of  Europe.  Egypt 
may  be  called  intramural  in  character,  while 
Greece  is  extramural*  Still  the  Greek  Temple 
has  likewise  its  intramural  element  showing  a 
colonnade  within  its  walls.  This  element,  largely 
the  transmitted  one  from  the  aforetime,  is  next 
to  be  looked  at. 

(H.)  The  Cella.  —  The  enclosing  wall  with 
its  enclosed  deity  has  now  become  inside,  while 


S08  ABCHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

the  Peristyle  is  outside,  is  the  manifestation. 
^Ou  account  of  this  lack  of  prominence  the  Cella 
has  not  been  duly  appreciated,  while  the  Peri- 
style has  received  nearly  all  the  attention  and 
admiration  given  to  the  Temple.  The  modest, 
shrinking,  self-introverted  Cella  lies  nevertheless 
in  the  Greek  character,  but  is  not  distinctively 
Greek,  since  it  belongs  to  many  other  peoples  as 
well,  notably  to  the  Egyptian,  to  whom,  how- 
ever, it  is  the  all-in-all.  Not  so  the  Greek,  who 
demonstrates  in  a  high  strain,  shows  himself  off 
grandly  and  is  on  the  whole  better  able  to 
express  himself  than  any  man  before  or  since. 
Thus  he  has  developed  the  exterior  till  it 
dazzles  and  dazes  the  long  line  of  spec- 
tators who  have  been  looking  back  at  his  per- 
formances these  two  last  thousand  years  and 
more.  Still  it  is  a  great  mistake  to  think  that 
he  has  no  interior,  that  he  is  all  show  and  rhet- 
oric, or  **  blarney,"  as  our  good  Irish  friend 
Mahaffy  diagnozes  him,  holding  him  to  be  the 
ancient  counterpart  of  the  modern  Irishman. 
The  unobtrusive  but  very  real  Cella  of  the  Greek 
Temple,  containing  the  God  Himself  as  well  as 
the  worshiper  in  his  innermost  communion  with 
the  God,  says  the  opposite  in  architectural 
speech.  In  fact  we  may  regard  just  this  relation 
of  Peristyle  and  Cella  as  characteristic  of  all 
Greek  Art,  Poetry,  History,  in  fine  of  the  Greek 
himself    and    of  his    whole  institutional  world. 


TEE  HELLENIC  NOBM.  209 

However  fascinating  and  beautiful  his  exterior, 
we  do  not  understand  him  till  we  penetrate  to 
his  interior,  which,  though  not  so  obvious,  is 
really  the  creative  source  of  his  brilliant  exter- 
nality. 

The  Cella  represents  the  transmitted  element 
of  the  Greek  Temple.  We  see  its  connection 
with  antecedent  forms,  Pelasgic,  European,  Ori- 
ental. In  early  Hellas  it  was  often  constructed 
of  wood,  we  may  well  suppose,  though  such 
structures  have  long  since  perished.  But  the 
simple  Cella  built  of  stone,  without  any  column 
outside  or  inside,  may  still  be  seen  in  Greece. 
The  so-called  Temple  of  Zeus  at  Ocha,  is  the 
walled  Cella  in  its  primeval  form  without  col- 
umns, a  single  oblong  room.  Several  similar 
structures  have  been  found  in  Eubcea  and  else- 
where. But  the  Cella  with  columns  inside  sup- 
porting the  roof  is  a  development  of  Egyptian 
Architecture,  which  we  have  already  seen  un- 
folding from  the  piers  of  the  old  Temple  of  the 
Sphinx  to  the  columns  in  the  Hypostyle  Hall  of 
Karnak. 

Now  the  Cella  in  its  final  Greek  form  retains 
these  interior  columns,  to  be  sure  in  a  new  way. 
Inside  the  wall  is  another  lateral  row  of  columns 
parallel  to  the  row  outside,  but  usually  smaller. 
Then  on  top  of  these  was  another  row  of  col- 
umns still  smaller  than  the  last  and  forming  the 
gallery  of   the    second   story.     (See   the   large 

11 


210  ABCHITECTUEE—EUBOPEAN. 

temple  of  Paestum.)  Thus  it  will  be  seen  that 
the  Greek  preserved  his  Egyptian  inheritance, 
with  the  changes  necessary  to  uphold  the  slop- 
ing roof  of  rainland.  But  he  encompassed  it 
with  his  grand  original  contribution,  the  Peri- 
style. Still  this  exteriorizing  of  the  column  has 
many  stages,  from  the  first  shy  appearance  of 
two  columns  before  the  main  entrance,  yet  held 
back  between  the  extended  side-walls  (seen 
in  the  Distylos  in  antis),  till  the  peristylar  prin- 
ciple becomes  doubled  and  even  quadrupled  to 
the  front  and  rear  (see  plan  of  the  Olympieion 
at  Athens). 

We  have  already  stated  that  the  Peristyle  and 
Cella  have  their  prof oundest  meaing  in  the  fact 
that  they  bring  out  in  a  very  striking  manner 
the  twofoldness  of  European  Architecture  at  its 
start,  thus  giving  an  architectural  presentation 
of  that  spiritual  dualism  which  underlies  Eu- 
rope's entire  civilization.  For  Architecture, 
building  the  dwelling-place  of  institutions,  has 
to  manifest  their  character.  But  we  must  like- 
wise consider  that  all  Architecture,  taken  in  its 
universal  artistic  meaning  is  twofold,  is  the  outer 
Enclosure  of  the  Spirit  within. 

The  Cella,  then,  remains  the  archaic,  trans- 
mitted, inherited  element  of  Greek  Architecture — 
the  old  surrounded  by  the  new  which,  however, 
it  has  projected  out  of  itself  and  thereby  made 
a  new   type  of   construction.     The  main  points 


THE  HELLENIO  NORM.  211 

of   the  Greek   Cella,   we   may  put   together  as 
follows :  — 

1.  The  Entrance.  We  recollect  how  the  Egyp- 
tian Temple  at  Karnak  emphasized  its  Entrance 
as  if  something  very  important  had  been  won. 
A  suggestion  of  the  same  sort  meets  us  at  the 
Entrance  of  the  Greek  Temple,  which,  though 
of  various  kinds,  betrays  some  ancestral  traits 
coming  from  the  valley  of  the  Nile.  For  instance 
the  two  extended  piers  in  front  (an(ce)  represent 
the  pylons  in  spite  of  many  differences  in  form 
and  size.  The  two  columns  before  the  portal  (in 
the  Theseion  and  elsewhere)  have  a  kinship, 
even  if  remote,  to  the  two  Obelisks  before  the 
Egyptian  Entrance.  The  pilaster  with  its  own 
capital  and  base,  and  even  with  flutings,  shows 
the  column  just  beginning  to  emerge  from  the 
wall  in  the  shape  of  a  pier  and  making  an  open- 
ing in  the  Cella.  Through  its  position,  form  and 
mouldings  the  pilaster  declares  its  origin  to  be  of 
the  wall,  from  which  the  supporting  principle 
(the  future  column)  is  just  beginning  to  peep 
out   and  smile,  as  well  as  to  form  the  Entrance. 

2.  Divisions.  If  we  compare  the  divisions  in 
the  ground-plans  of  the  Cella,  which  are  given  in 
books  on  Architecture,  we  find  them  varying 
from  one  to  five  (the  latter  in  the  restoration  of 
the  Temple  of  Diana  at  Ephesus.  Usually, 
however,  there  were  three :  the  Vestibule  (pVo- 
naos),  the  Temple  proper  (naos)  and  the  Annex 


212  ABCHITEGTURE  —  EUROPEAN, 

(epinaos).  The  Temple  proper  was  the  heart 
of  the  whole  building,  the  simple  original  house 
of  the  God  round  which  the  other  parts  were 
built  in  a  series  of  layers.  In  this  room  stood 
the  statue  of  the  God,  receiving  light  from  an 
opening  in  the  roof  above ;  at  least  such  was  the 
case  in  the  so-called  hypsethral  temples.  Start- 
ing from  this  single  room  as  the  primordial 
center,  we  can  see  how  the  Cella  is  capable  of 
accretion,  like  an  Egyptian  Temple,  till  it  is  sur- 
rounded and  restrained  by  the  chain  of  columns, 
the  Peristyle. 

3.  Interior  Colonnades.  It  has  been  already 
noted  that  the  Cella  of  the  developed  Hellenic 
Temple  had  its  system  of  Colonnades  inside  its 
wall,  as  had  also  the  Egyptian  Temple.  But 
these  did  not  assume  the  form  of  the  self -re- 
turning Peristyle,  which  belonged  outside  and 
gave  completion  to  the  structure.  Generally 
these  interior  Colonnades  were  two,  one  on  each 
side  of  the  naos,  which  thus  had  two  lateral  gal- 
leries. Sometimes  another  row  of  columns, 
smaller  in  size,  was  superposed  upon  each  of 
these  lower  Colonnades,  forming  two  upper  gal- 
leries. Thus  quite  an  extensive  columnar  de- 
velopment took  place  within  the  Cella,  employing 
columns  not  only  of  different  sizes  but  even  of 
different  orders.  Kecent  investigation  reports 
that   Ionic   and  Corinthian  Columns  have  been 


THE  BELLE  NIG  NORM,  213 

found   in  the  temple  of  Apollo  at  Bassse,  built 
by  Ictinus,  the  architect  of  the  Parthenon. 

So  much  for  the  Cella  which  carries  us 
back  to  the  intramural  colonnade  of  the  Hypo- 
style  Hall  at  Karnak,  though  the  columns  of  the 
two  kinds  of  Temples,  Greek  and  Egyptian, 
show  differences  of  form,  and  are  differently 
arranged.  To  our  mind  the  Cella  indicates  the 
conjunction  of  two  diverse  elements,  the  prim- 
itive -proto-European  (the  simple  stone  wall) 
and  the  civilized  Egyptian  (the  interior  col- 
umns). Both  these  elements  we  have  seen  en- 
tering Greece  which,  through  its  newly  developed 
social  institutions,  transformed  them  and  united 
them  with  its  own  peculiar  architectural  form,  the 
Peristyle  —  the  latter  being  an  association  of 
individual  columns  complete  in  itself  outside,  but 
holding  in  its  embrace  the  Cella  inside. 

Taking  aglance  into  the  future  we  can  see  that 
the  Cella  has  a  great  development  before  itself  in 
the  Christian  Church,  which  will  again  interiorize 
the  outside  column,  and  unfold  an  inside  Archi- 
tecture supplanting  the  Classic  Style. 

But  at  present  we  are  to  observe  the  return 
from  the  inside  (Cella)  to  the  outside  (Peristyle) 
in  a  new  connecting  member,  which  rounds  out 
the  whole  Temple,  bridging  the  dualism  between 
the  two  previous  members,  and  completing  the 
process  of  the  structure. 


214  ABGHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

III.  The  Entablature  . — We  have  now  reached 
the  third  constituent  of  the  Hellenic  Norm, 
which  again  turns  outward  and  manifests  a  new 
form  of  what  lies  within.  The  covering  of  the 
structure,  having  done  its  duty  by  protecting  the 
interior  from  the  assailing  elements  of  nature, 
is  to  show  in  external  shapes  its  service,  its 
character.  It  is  the  supported,  the  upborne, 
resting  upon  the  column  (the  supporting)  and 
upon  the  wall  (both  supporting  and  supported). 
It  is  also  prostrate,  horizontal,  lying  down  upon 
its  supports  at  full  length,  in  contrast  with  the 
upright,  upbearing  tendency  of  the  column. 
Finally  it  is  the  connecting  member  of  the  entire 
edifice,  which  we  behold  rising  from  the  pave- 
ment into  its  separate  members  —  many  columns 
and  many  walls  —  but  is  unified  and  rounded  out 
above  by  the  covering  whose  various  elements 
find  their  outward  expression  in  the  Entablature. 

This  part  of  the  Hellenic  Norm  has  proved 
itself  to  be  immortal,  lasting  in  full  bloom  down 
to  the  present  day,  and  being  almost  as  great  a 
favorite  as  the  Peristyle.  The  Temple  as  space- 
enclosing  must  be  covered  over,  and  this  cover- 
ing must  afford  protection  to  what  is  underneath, 
notably  to  the  God.  Now  the  climate  of  Greece 
is  much  more  exacting  than  that  of  Egypt,  it 
has  rain,  and  in  most  places  ice  and  snow, 
Egypt  beyond  the  Delta  being  quite  rainless,  and 
of    course   warm.     Thus   the    covering   of    the 


THE  HELLENIC  NOBM.  215 

Greek  temple  is  the  protector  who  has  to  meet 
the  bitter  assaults  of  Nature,  in  the  form  of  sua 
and  shower  and  cold.  It  has,  therefore,  an  im- 
portance unknown  in  Egypt,  whose  chief  natural 
foe  during  a  portion  of  the  year  is  old  Sol. 
Hence  the  Greek  developed  so  fully  the  Archi- 
tecture of  the  Covering,  and  expressed  so  com- 
pletely in  forms  of  stone  all  its  details  of 
function,  even  down  to  the  drops  of  rain  trick- 
ling from  the  eaves  (guttce). 

But  the  chief  effect  of  the  climatic  difference 
will  be  seen  in  the  slanting  roof  to  shed  the  rain. 
This  produces  the  triangular  shape  in  front  and 
rear  called  the  pediment,  which  the  Greek  eagerly 
seized  upon  and  filled  with  statuary  telling  usu- 
ally of  some  great  action  of  the  God  who  was 
present  within  the  Temple. 

The  Entablature  has  three  parts,  representing 
the  thrice-panoplied  Protector  of  the  Greek 
sanctuary.  These  three  parts  are  the  Archi- 
trave, connecting  outwardly  the  separate 
columns  into  the  Peristyle;  the  Frieze  con- 
necting the  outer  and  inner,  the  Peristyle  and 
Cella,  and  forming  the  basis  of  the  ceiling ;  the 
Cornice,  announcing  by  its  projection  the  roof 
as  the  completed  covering  of  the  structure. 
Each  of  these  parts  of  the  Entablature,  we  shall 
look  at  separately  in  a  short  characterization. 

1.  The  Architrave.  Notice  has  already  been 
taken  of   this  element  in   connection   with   the 


216  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

Peristyle,  whose  separate  columns  it  unites  into 
the  columnar  circuit.  The  single  tie-beam  (the 
unit  of  the  Architrave)  with  its  two  columns 
forms  the  trabeate-columnar  Pattern  whose  rep- 
etitions constitute  the  total  Peristyle.  Moreover 
the  Architrave  renders  possible  the  Entrance, 
and  produces  with  its  side  columns  that  rectangu- 
lar shape  which  delighted  the  Greek,  the  lover 
of  the  right  angle  in  Architecture. 

Having  performed  the  function  of  overcoming 
columnar  separation  though  associating  those 
somewhat  refractory  individuals,  the  columns, 
and  also  having  assisted  in  making  a  free  opening 
to  all  the  world,  the  Architrave  has  done  its 
work.  It  has  hardly  any  mouldings,  sometimes 
a  few  horizontal  lines  in  it  accentuate  its  meaning, 
which,  however,  is  already  plain  enough  in  its 
very  form  and  position,  being  an  external  con- 
necting tie  by  its  own  nature.  It  seems  to  lie 
down,  stretched  from  capital  to  capital  with  a 
heavy  horizontalism.  which  makes  no  resistance 
to  gravity.  It  is  the  unchangeable,  stolid  mem- 
ber of  the  whole  Temple,  being  just  about  the 
same  old  stone  block  which  we  saw  in  the  most 
ancient  structures  of  Egypt,  lying  flat  on  its 
back  and  reaching  from  pier  to  pier.  In  con- 
trast with  the  utterly  unprogressive,  undeveloped 
Architrave,  the  Column  has  shown  itself  more 
capable  of  development  than  any  other  archi- 
tectural member.     The  one  may  be  thought  to 


THE  HELLENIC  NORM.  217 

represent  Spirit,  the  other  to  represent  Matter, 
yet  both  are  united  undissolubly  to  make  the 
peristylar  circuit. 

But  in  this  old,  undeveloped,  unregenerate 
Architrave  lay  the  fundamental  weakness  of  the 
Hellenic  Temple  which  somehow  never  could 
transform  this  backward  member.  If  the  tie- 
beam  was  strong,  the  building  was  strong ;  but  if 
its  material  had  a  flaw,  or  if  it  crumbled  easily  by 
being  physically  too  soft,  the  ruin  would  begin 
at  that  point.  The  Greek  temple,  so  self-suffic- 
ing and  internally  determined  in  many  respects, 
had  just  here  the  Fate  of  Nature  ominously 
hanging  over  it,  and  ready  to  smite  almost  with- 
out warning.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  Greek 
consciousness  had  such  a  strong  impress  of 
Destiny,  having  built  the  same  into  its  Temple 
of  the  Gods.  Through  Greek  Tragedy  runs  the 
same  thread  of  Fate,  which  subtly  insinuates 
itself  into  the  very  Norm  of  Greek  Achitecture. 

2.  The  Frieze,  This  is  the  second  element  of 
the  Entablature,  and  is  variously  treated  in  the 
different  Orders,  and  even  in  the  same  Order. 
Primarily  it  springs  from  the  ends  of  the  cross- 
beams connecting  the  Architrave  and  the  wall 
of  the  Cella;  on  these  ends  the  so-called  tri- 
glyphs  of  the  Doric  Frieze  were  cut.  Between 
the  triglyphs  was  an  opening  nearly  square 
(metope)  which  was  employed  for  sculpture  or 
filled   with    a   bare    stone    slab.     In   the    other 


218  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

Orders  the  Frieze  was  decorated  with  figures  or 
left  naked  of  ornament.  It  was  called  by  the 
ancients,  Zophoros^  the  life-bearer  in  image, 
showing  some  mythical  conflict  in  relief  usually. 
The  grooves  of  the  triglyph  in  the  Doric  Frieze 
seem  a  continuation  of  the  flutings  of  the 
column  underneath  and  change  the  horizontal 
lines  of  the  Architrave  (down-bearing)  into  ver- 
tical ones  (up-bearing).  And  the  openings  of 
the  metope  have  their  correspondence  in  the 
openings  between  the  columns  below.  We  thus 
see  in  the  Doric  Frieze,  which  is  the  most  original 
of  all  the  Friezes,  a  repetition,  even  if  somewhat 
remote,  of  the  Peristyle  below.  The  spaces 
between  the  columns  was  for  actual  life,  while 
the  spaces  between  the  triglyphs  (metopes),  not 
being  accessible,  were  filled  with  images  of  life 
(Zophoros  as  above). 

The  Frieze  resting  upon  the  Architrave  went 
around  the  entire  Temple.  In  the  Ionic  and 
Corinthian  Orders  it  began  to  lose  the  construc- 
tive meaning  which  it  had  in  the  Doric,  and  be- 
came hardly  more  than  a  repetition  of  the  horizon- 
tal Architrave,  even  when  this  repetition  was  con- 
cealed by  profuse  ornamentation.  To  be  truly 
organic,  the  Frieze  should  indicate  verticalism,  as 
it  does  in  the  Doric,  which  was,  therefore,  used 
sometimes  in  the  other  Orders. 

The  Cella  had  also  a  so-called  Frieze  some- 
times, which  species  has  become  famous  through 


TEE  HELLENIC  NOBM.  219 

the  Frieze  of  the  Cella  of  the  Parthenon,  a  long 
line  of  sculptured  figures  in  low  relief  supposed 
to  represent  the  Panathenaic  festival.  This  was 
outside  on  the  Cella  wall,  but  there  could  be 
similar  representations  inside. 

Structurally  the  Frieze  was  a  supporting,  up- 
bearing element,  and  was  properly  to  be  seen  as 
such  in  its  outside  appearance.  Now  we  are  to 
see  that  which  it  supported. 

3.  The  Cornice.  This  third  element  of  the 
Entablature  shows  decidedly  a  return  to  the  hori- 
zontalism  of  the  Architrave,  making  the  entire 
Entablature  a  process  of  the  supported  which 
rests  upon  the  columns  of  the  Peristyle.  The 
Cornice  overhangs  the  whole  outer  structure, 
giving  protection  to  what  is  below,  and  at  the 
same  time  concluding  the  edifice.  It  is  em- 
phatically down-bearing  in  character,  and  hence 
in  its  forms  reposing  upon  the  up-bearing  Frieze. 
Internally  from  it  springs  the  upper  cross-pieces 
of  the  ceiling  which  also  protect  overhead. 
Likewise  out  of  it  rise  the  slanting  rafters  of  the 
roof  for  shedding  rain.  This  slanting  roof  pro- 
duces the  triangular  spaces  in  front  and  rear 
called  pediments,  which  form  one  of  the  most 
striking  peculiarities  of  the  Greek  temple,  be- 
ing filled  with  a  row  of  statues  which  can  rep- 
resent a  history  or  a  process  in  its  rise,  cul- 
mination and  decline,  and  at  whose  apex  can 
stand   the    God  of   the  temple    in  some    divine 


220  ABGHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

deed  at  its  critical  moment.  Moreover,  it 
was  this  pediment  which  imparted  to  the  Hel- 
lenic temple  in  front  the  suggestive  look  of  the 
human  face  with  its  bi-lateral  symmetry,  with 
the  hair  of  the  head  parted  in  the  middle  and 
fluffed  down  the  sides.  Thus  the  pediment  is  a 
kind  of  forehead  of  the  total  temple,  and  has  its 
relation  to  the  forehead  of  the  Goddess  standing 
upright  in  its  center  (see  Athena  in  the  pediment 
of  the  Temple  of  Egina). 

The  Cornice  is  the  last  element  not  only  of  the 
Entablature  but  of  the  entire  Temple,  and  hence 
its  projections  may  be  deemed  to  have  a  treble 
reference:  first  to  the  Frieze  just  below  it, 
secondly  to  the  Architrave  or  perchance  to  the 
whole  of  the  Entablature,  thirdly  to  the  whole 
of  the  Temple,  which  it  finishes.  The  mem- 
bers of  the  Cornice,  however,  vary  from  two 
to  six  or  more,  with  omissions  and  additions 
of  forms  of  diverse  sizes  and  shapes  in  the  dif- 
ferent Orders  and  even  in  the  same  Order. 

The  Greek  Cornice  has  proved  to  be  a  lasting 
thing,  since  we  often  see  it  upon  the  humble  cot- 
tage of  brick  or  wood,  fulfilling  its  function  there 
as  well  as  upon  the  temple  or  palace.  To  make 
it  has  become  a  part  of  the  trade  of  the  ordinary 
carpenter  and  bricklayer,  who  is  likely  to  have 
no  knowledge  whence  it  came.  Still  it  reveals 
even  in  the  hands  of  the  common  artisan  its 
Greek   character   of   expressiveness,    telling   its 


TEE  HELLENIC  NOBM.  221 

purpose  through  its  forms.  It  suggests  the 
Covering  of  the  Structure  through  its  overhang- 
ing members  which  reach  out  in  order  to  cover 
all  that  is  underneath .  Of  these  projections  we 
may  count  three  as  the  average  number,  though 
they  may  be  more  or  less,  always  hinting,  hcrw- 
ever,  that  the  roof  and  ceilino:  inside  are  mani- 
festing  themselves  outside  in  an  architectural 
expression. 

The  first  prominent  projection  of*  the  Cornice 
suggests  the  division  which  comes  from  the 
mejnber  just  below  it,  the  Frieze,  which  in  the 
Doric  Order  has  Triglyphs  and  Metopes,  with 
upbearing  lines.  The  Mutules  and  the  Dentules 
of  this  first  prominent  projection  of  the  Cornice 
receive  their  divisions  from  the  Frieze  and  join 
Ihem  together  in  a  band  or  horizontal  form, 
constituting  thus  a  transitional  link  between  the 
two  upper  members  of  the  Entablature  (Frieze 
and  Cornice).  The  second  prominent  projection 
of  the  Cornice  is  'the  Corona,  mainly  a  repro- 
duction of  the  prostrate  Architrave.  The  third 
prominent  projection  of  the  Cornice  is  the  jSitna, 
the  eaves  proper,  ending  in  a  fanciful  waterspout 
(lion's  head,  etc.).  Between  those  three  main 
projections  other  forms  are  often  introduced, 
with  many  bright  turns  of  fancy,  particularly  in 
the  later  Roman  Cornice,  which  takes  delight  in 
finishing  off  the  last  member  of  the  fine  house 
with  manifold  flourishes. 


^22  AUGHITEC  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

At  this  point  we  wind  up  the  movement  of  the 
Hellenic  Norm  in  its  three  stages — Peristyle, 
Cella,  and  Entablature  —  constituting  the  ideal 
life  of  that  most  original  and  prolific  structure, 
the  Greek  Temple.  Though  it  be  of  stone,  we 
have  sought  to  emphasize  its  living,  moving  soul 
by  keeping  always  in  view  its  process,  each  of 
whose  stages  is  again  a  process  reflecting  the 
Whole.  But  this  ideal  Hellenic  Norm  we  are 
now  to  see  becoming  real,  taking  on  its  particular 
shapes  in  avast  multiplicity,  which  has,  however, 
its  order  also,  its  own  distinctive  process  next  to 
be  set  forth. 


B.  The  Hellenic  Orders. 

The  Hellenic  Norm  is  the  archetype  of  all 
Greek  structures  whatever,  the  primordial  Con- 
ception of  them,  out  of  which  they  are  born. 
They  have  something  in  common  which  makes 
us  call  them  Greek,  however  diversified  they  may 
be;  they  possess  an  underlying  creative  form 
which  begets  them  and  stamps  the  impress  of 
the  parent  indelibly  upon  their  features. 

This  fact  having  been  considered  in  the  pre- 
ceding section,  we  now  pass  to  the  Norm  real- 
ized, uttering  itself  in  actual  shapes  to  the  human 
eye  in  a  vast  manifoldness.  This  stage  is  that 
of  the  Hellenic  Orders,  in  which  the  Norm  be- 
comes particular,  real,  yea  sensuous;   or,  think- 


TEE  HELLENIC  OBDEES.  223 

ing  our  theme  again  in  Plato's  speech,  we  may 
say  that  the  architectural  Idea  now  appears,  is 
the  Phenomenon  in  these  Orders.  Thus  outer 
diversity  enters  in  contrast  to  the  inner  unity  of 
the  Norm,  which  now  breaks  forth  into  the  full- 
ness of  existence. 

Still  this  fullness  is  by  no  means  indefinite, 
chaotic,  without  proportion.  We  shall  see  these 
Hellenic  Orders  unfolding  outwardly,  according 
to  their  inner  law,  and  manifesting  in  their  de- 
velopment a  truly  Greek  harmony.  They  will 
go  through  their  complete  cycle  and  then  con- 
clude. The  history  of  Greek  Architecture  is 
itself  a  Greek  Temple  in  symmetry  and  com- 
pleteness. All  the  Greek  edifices  of  all  ages 
form  at  last  in  the  mind  one  total  Greek  edifice 
of  which  they  are  the  harmonious  parts,  which 
totality  the  Greek  tried  also  to  realize  in  his  city, 
as  we  shall  see  later. 

It  will  hardly  surprise  our  alert  reader  now  to 
learn  that  the  Hellenic  Orders  are  three,  and, 
though  three,  form  one  process  together,  whose 
contemplation  leaves  in  the  soul  that  sense  of 
evolutionary  completeness  which  has  a  kinship 
with  music.  These  three  Hellenic  Orders  are 
known  under  the  names  of  Doric,  Ionic,  and 
Corinthian,  the  first  two  being  called  after  two 
Greek  tribes  and  the  third  after  a  Greek  city 
(Corinth).  These  designations  are  firmly  estab- 
lished and  must  remain,  as  they  come  down  from 


224  ABCHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

antiquity.  But  we  may  run  a  second  line  of 
flames  alongside  of  them  derived  from  the  his- 
toric sequence  of  the  Orders,  entitling  them 
Early  Hellenic,  Middle  Hellenic,  and  Late  Hel- 
lenic. 

'  That  is,  in  the  development  of  the  Hellenic 
Orders,  the  Doric  is  to  be  placed  first.  It  best 
corresponds  to  the  original,  native  character  of 
the  whole  Greek  race.  It  has  a  primitive,  im- 
mediate, undeveloped  element  which  can  only 
spring  out  of  the  total  folk-spirit  of  a  youthful 
and  somewhat  rude  age.  We  must  not  confound 
the  Dorian,  especially  this  early  national  Dorian, 
with  the  Spartan,  as  is  so  often  done.  Sparta 
never  developed  any  kind  of  Architecture,  or  Art, 
or  Philosophy.  We  must  recollect  that  the 
bloom  of  the  Doric  Order  took  place  at  Athens, 
which  was  of  Ionic  blood.  The  Theseion  and 
the  Parthenon  are  Doric  temples,  erected  not 
long  after  Athens  had  done  her  supreme  national 
act  in  expelling  the  Persian,  when  she  was  filled 
with  and  became  the  representative  of  the  total 
Hellenic  spirit.  She  must  have  chosen  the 
Doric  Order  for  these  structures,  not  because  it 
was  Spartan  or  tribal,  but  because  it  was  national 
and  Hellenic,  the  early  original  Hellenic  Order. 
Then  came  the  Ionic  and  last  of  all  the  Corin- 
thian. 

Reaching  back  for  the  evolution  of  this  Order 
we  have  already  found  it  in  Egypt  at  Beni-Has- 


THE  HELLENIC  OBDERS.  225 

san.  But  when  did  these  Egyptian  forms  reach 
Hellas  and  begin  their  influence?  Quite  impos- 
sible to  tell  the  date,  but  we  can  mention  a  sug- 
gestive fact  or  two.  In  a  distant  mountain 
valley  of  the  Peloponnesus  are  lying  the  frag- 
ments of  an  octagonal  column  of  an  ancient 
temple  (probably  that  of  Artemis  at  Limnse) . 
Another  column  of  the  same  kind  has  been  found 
at  Troizen,  belonging  apparently  to  that  temple 
of  Apollo  which  Pausanias  declares  to  be  the 
oldest  known  to  him  in  Greece.  So  we  behold 
to-day  on  Hellenic  soil  the  duplicates  of  the 
octagonal  column  already  noted  at  Beni-Hassan. 
Moreover  several  ancient  pyramids,  not  very 
large  it  is  true,  have  been  found  in  the  Pelopon- 
nesus. All  this  can  mean  but  one  thing:  at  an 
early  time  Greece  began  imitating  and  trans- 
planting Egyptian  architectural  forms,  which  it 
started  to  work  over  and  transfigure  after  its  own 
character. 

Herewith  rises  another  question:  When  did 
this  transformation  into  the  present  Doric  and 
Ionic  shapes  take  place  ?  Again  the  date  cannot 
be  set.  But  we  see  columns  with  a  developed 
base  at  Mycenae  (in  the  Thesaurus) ,  and  between 
the  two  Lions  over  the  gate  stands  a  pillar  which 
resembles  an  inverted  Ionic  column.  The  fol- 
lowing curious  statement  we  read  in  Pausanias : 
Myron,  the  tyrant  of  Sicyon  (about  650  B.  C.) 
erected  at  Olympia  a  treasure-house   which  had 

15 


226  ABGBlfEOTUBE  —  EUROPEAN: 

one  chamber  in  Doric  and  another  in  Ionic  style, 
^piympia  was  the  gathering  place  of  the  whole 
Hellenic  race,  all  its  influences  centered  there 
and  went  out  thence,  at  least  as  news;  we  may 
fairly  infer  that  the  two  kinds  of  columns  had 
been  differentiated  fully,  and  had  become  known 
throughout  Greece  700-600  B.  C.  But  a  treas- 
ure-house could  not  well  have  had  a  Peristyle  in 
its  rooms.  The  full  development  of  the  peri- 
stylar  Temple  took  place  doubtless  in  the  Greek 
colonies,  West  and  East;  so  the  monuments 
remaining  speak  to-day. 

The  Doric  Order  (as  previously  stated)  has 
left  its  earliest,  largest  and  most  numerous  ex- 
amples in  the  Greek  cities  of  Sicily  and  South- 
ern Italy.  The  ruins  of  more  than  twenty  Doric 
temples  are  to  be  found  in  Sicily  alone,  attesting 
the  wealth  and  spirit  of  its  Hellenic  population. 
The  striking  part  of  the  Doric  column  in  these 
early  temples  is  the  protruding  echinus,  which 
suggests  the  enormous  burden  which  it  has 
to  bear.  Moreover  the  columns  are  thick  and 
short  and  placed  close  together,  with  a  nar- 
row Cella  having  a  wide  passage  around  it.  The 
almost  crushing  task  of  bearing  their  burden 
cries  out  of  these  Sicilian  Peristyles,  which  be- 
speak a  people  building  them  under  the  weight 
of  a  struggle  almost  unendurable.  These  heavy 
columns  of  the  first  Hellenic  Order  seem  to  indi- 
cate the  burden  which  the  colonial  cities  labor 


THE  HELLENIC  OBDEBS.  22l 

under  to  maintain  Hellenism  against  the  ever- 
threatening  power  of  Semitic  Carthage.  In 
Sicily  too  the  conflict  between  the  Orient  and 
Hellas  has  to  be  fought  out  and  also  to  be  built 
out.  Hence  it  comes  that  these  cities  erected  so 
many  temples  to  the  Greek  Gods,  seeking  to  ob- 
tain divine  assistance  against  the  enemies  of  the 
Hellenic  nation  and  of  its  deities.  The  struggle 
with  the  Semite  was  of  a  more  religious  cast  than 
that  with  the  Persian.  Sicily  is  literally  strown 
with  the  ruins  of  these  Greek  temples,  quite  all 
of  them  belonging  to  this  early  period,  which 
must  have  been  animated  with  a  stronof  religfious 
fervor  for  the  national  Gods.  Later  the  Sicilian 
Greeks  built  no  more  temples,  refusing  to  finish 
even  those  which  had  been  begun  in  that  former 
period  of  zeal.  Still  to-day  we  see  the  half- 
trimmed  blocks  of  stone  at  which  the  workman 
was  hammering  over  two  thousand  years  ago, 
when  his  hand  w'as  suddenly  stopped,  probably 
by  some  blow  of  fate  befalling  his  city. 

If  the  Doric  Order  arose  to  its  normal  devel- 
opment in  the  Western  Greek  colonies,  the 
Ionic  arose  in  the  Eastern.  The  coast  of  Asia 
Minor  and  the  adjacent  islands  were  filled  with 
Hellenic  cities  in  which  the  Ionic  stock  was  domi- 
nant. There  the  Ionic  Order  naturally  came  to 
its  bloom.  What  was  its  origin?  Besides  the 
view  that  it  was  a  native  product  of  the  country, 
two  opinions  have  been  held :  one  that  its  home  is 


228  ABCBITECTUBE  — EUROPEAN.    • 

the  valley  of  the  Euphrates,  the  other  that  it 
comes  from  the  valley  of  the  Nile.  There  is 
much  to  suggest  the  volutes  —  the  most  distinc- 
tive member  of  the  Ionic  column  —  in  old  Assy- 
rian as  well  as  in  later  Persian  Architecture. 
But  the  probability  m  that  all  these  forms,  Greek 
as  well  as  Oriental,  sprang  from  that  mother  of 
Architecture,  old  Egypt,  whose  children  flowed 
forth  both  into  Asia  and  Europe.  There  are 
lotus  columns  which  certainly  hint  the  Ionic  cap- 
ital. Then,  on  the  Egyptian  monuments  are 
drawings  which  present  the  volute  quite  fully 
developed,  we  may  say  Ionized.  We  must  recol- 
lect that  these  colonial  cities  both  East  and  West 
lay  on  the  sea,  and  engaged  in  a  direct  maritime 
trade  with  Egypt.  They  differed  in  this  respect 
from  the  older  cities  of  continental  Greece,  which 
were  mostly  built  inland,  though  not  far  from 
the  coast,  where  they  had  a  port.  Thus  the  in- 
tercourse of  the  Greek  colonies  with  the  East 
was  more  near  and  easy.  The  early  Greek  his- 
torian (Herodotus)  has  mentioned  the  reign  of 
Psammetichus  (670  B.  C),  as  the  time  when 
Egypt  was  opened  up  to  the  Greeks  by  a  friendly 
king.  But  they  had  long  been  coming,  even  if 
under  restrictions. 

While  thus  the  thriving  Greek  colonies  on  the 
borderland  of  Hellas  took  up  the  Oriental  stream, 
they  were  not  absorbed  by  it,  they  were  not 
Orientalized.     On  the  contrary  this  is  what  they 


THE  HELLENIC  0BDEB8.  229 

resisted  with  all  their  might  by  force  of  arms. 
They  asserted  their  Hellenism  by  Hellenizing 
the  Orient,  whose  constructive  shapes  and  whose 
culture  generally  they  made  over  into  their  own. 
In  fact  just  this  victorious  struggle  against  subjec- 
tion to  the  Orient  is  what  called  forth  the  Greek 
world  politically,  as  well  as  its  Poetry,  Art,  Philos- 
ophy. Now  this  is  also  the  case  with  Architec- 
ture in  both  its  Orders,  Doric  and  Ionic,  in  Sicily 
and  in  Ionia.  The  lonians,  however,  were  less 
religious  than  the  Dorians,  hence  we  find  fewer 
early  temples  in  the  Ionic  East  than  in  the  Doric 
West.     Moreover,  the  lonians  were  beorinninff  to 

'  DO 

philosophize  at  Miletus  (Thales,  600  B.  C),  and 
this  Philosophy  was  not  favorable  to  the  Gods, 
Oriental  or  Greek  (see  our  Ancient  European 
Philosophy,  pp.  69,79).  It  must  also  be  con- 
fessed that  the  Dorians  of  Sicily  asserted  their 
Hellenism  with  far  greater  tenacity  and  success 
than  did  the  lonians  in  the  East,  who,  however, 
were  the  more  cultivated  stock,  the  more  ad- 
vanced in  Art,  Science,  and  Philosophy.  Hence 
the  Ionic  Order  must  be  deemed  more  developed 
than  the  Doric,  also  a  little  later  in  time  though 
apparently  not  much,  as  they  seem  to  move 
nearly  together. 

Still  later  than  the  Ionic  is  the  Corinthian 
Order.  Yet  it  is  not  so  late  as  has  been  gener- 
ally supposed.  Recent  discoveries  show  that  it 
must  have  been  in  use  about   the  middle  of  the 


230  ABCHITEQTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

Fifth  Century  B.C.  There  is  a  likelihood  that  it 
will  yet  be  traced  back  to  the  Sixth  Century  B. 
C,  thus  approaching  the  period  of  the  birth  of 
the  two  other  Orders.  Still  the  three  are  plainly 
successive  in  time,  and  still  more  plainly  succes- 
sive in  development,  going  through  their  cycle  of 
rise,  bloom,  and  decline  along  with  the  corre 
sponding  historic  movement  of  Hellas. 

It  is  the  Orders  which  introduce  the  element  of 
change,  separation,  variability  into  the  Hellenic 
Norm.  This  is  not  the  absolutely  rigid  and 
crystallized,  but  is  truly  plastic,  capable  of  infi- 
nite diversity,  yet  never  failing  to  manifest  the 
Idea,  the  universal  Greek  character.  First  we 
may  note  that  the  modulus  changes  in  each 
Order,  and  with  it  height,  proportion,  inter- 
columniation.  But  not  only  size  but  also  form 
changes  in  each  Order,  which  fact  shows  itself 
in  differences  of  Base,  of  Capital  and  of  Entab- 
lature. But  thirdly  each  Order  varies  within 
itself,  having  its  own  inner  evolution  through  a 
manifold  diversity  of  size  and  form.  That  is, 
the  three  Orders  constitute  an  evolutionary  pro- 
cess together ;  then  each  Order  in  and  of  itself 
has  within  itself  such  a  process. 

Here  the  reader  can  glimpse  in  advance  the 
object  and  the  method  of  the  following  exposition 
of  the  three  Orders  —  Doric,  Ionic  and  Corin- 
thian. They  are  to  be  shown  as  inter-related,  as 
parts   or  stages  of  one  greater  Whole.     Each  of 


THE  DORIC  OBDEB.  231 

these  Orders  will,  accordingly,  reveal  a  weakness, 
a  defect,  which  will  bring  it  to  an  end,  showing 
it  to  be  not  sufficient  in  itself,  but  partial,  a 
member  of  a  higher  totality.  Going  back  again 
to  Greek  Plato  who  was  cotemporaneous  with 
the  grand  flowering  of  this  Architecture,  and  who 
sprang  from  the  same  marvelous  out-pour  of 
Hellenic  Spirit,  we  may  catch  up  one  of  his 
words,  and  call  these  Orders  dialectical.  They 
show  in  their  movement  the  Platonic  Dialectic, 
the  dissolving  energy  working  in  all  finitude. 
With  their  very  excellence  comes  to  light  the 
mortal  limitation,  and  upon  this  weak  spot  falls 
the  blow  of  Greek  Fate,  which  overhangs  the 
beautiful  world  of  Hellas  from  Homer  to  Alex- 
ander, when  it  descends,  producing  the  mighty 
cataclysm  which  swallows  up  Greek  independ- 
ence and  with  it  Greek  originality. 

This  inner  movement  of  the  Hellenic  Orders, 
or  the  Dialectic  of  stone,  we  shall  try  to  make 
clear  by  pointing  out  the  particulars. 

(I.)  The  Doric  Order.  —  Already  we  have 
designated  this  Order  as  properly  the  early 
Hellenic,  the  most  completely  national  and 
original  of  all  the  Greek  Orders.  It  indicates 
the  robust  primal  Hellenism  of  the  early  stock 
of  Hellas,  more  straightforward  and  combative, 
yet  less  developed  and  polished,  and  also  less 
enervated  than  the  later  Orders. 

Still  we   shall   find   that  the  Doric  Order  will 


232  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

develop  a  limitation  which  makes  it  transitory. 
Hi  will  transgress  its  own  modulus  or  unit  of 
measure,  and  thus  break  down  its  own  law 
through  a  deeper  necessity.  Even  in  the  Parthe- 
non we  cannot  help  noting  the  columns  cramped 
together  at  each  corner  in  broken  proportion. 
This  is  the  work  of  the  disarranging  triglyph 
above  through  which  the  Order  becomes  dis- 
order, refusing  to  obey  its  own  governing 
principle.  Such  is  the  fact  plainly  manifested 
in  the  following  stages,  in  which  the  mentioned 
limitation  is  seen  to  be  an  element  of  the  process. 
1.  The  Doric  Column.  The  general  charac- 
ter of  this  member  has  been  already  described. 
The  fact  of  its  directness  or  even  bluntness  is 
indicated  by  its  lack  of  a  base,  which  in  the 
other  Columns  is  the  polite  transition  from  the 
rectilineal  stylobat  to  the  curvilineal  shaft.  Its 
height  was  from  four  to  six  diazneters  (the  Par- 
thenon was  over  ^yq  and  a  half) ;  the  intercol- 
umniation  (distance  between  columns)  was  from 
one  and  one-fourth  to  one  and  one-half  times 
the  diameter.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  Doric 
Column  was  not  absolutely  fixed  in  its  propor- 
tions; it,  too,  changed,  was  plastic  and  adjusted 
itself  to  the  taste  of  passing  periods,  which  de- 
manded more  slender  and  condescending  shapes. 
Wherein  likewise  we  must  see  that  the  original 
Hellenic  character  was  gradually  losing  its  na- 
tive force  and  robustness.      The  low,  thick,  heavy 


TEE  DOBIC  ORDEB.  233 

shaft  with  its  pugnacious  echinus  in  the  temple 
of  Selinus  (reaching  out  defiantly  against  the 
Carthaginian),  is  wholly  transformed  in  the  easy 
graceful,  even  light-moving  column  of  the  The- 
seion.  Still  that  abrupt  connection  with  the 
stylobat  remains,  but  it  begins  to  produce  a  dis- 
card which  calls  for  some  new  adjustment. 

2.  The  Doric  Triglyph.  The  Frieze  is  the 
most  distinctive  thing  in  the  Doric  Entablature, 
and  in  the  Frieze  the  emphasis  rests  upon  the 
Triglyph,  literally  the  triple-grooved  rectangular 
block,  though  there  are  really  but  .two  grooves 
with  two  half-grooves  on  the  sides  of  the  block. 
These  Triglyphs  alternate  with  openings  which 
are  usually  filled  with  sculpture  in  high  relief, 
the  so-called  Metopes.  Now  the  Triglyph  was 
essentially  a  continuation  of  the  fluting  of  the 
Column  below,  with  its  vertical  lines  in  contrast 
with  horizontal  lines  of  the  Architrave.  Here 
rises  the  difficulty  which  affects  the  whole  Order. 
The  Triglyph  placed  at  the  corner  does  not  stand 
over  the  center  of  the  column,  while  all  the  other 
Triglyphs  have  this  central  position.  The  result 
is  the  Column  next  to  the  corner,  is  brought  a 
little  closer  to  the  latter,  and  the  opening  above 
is  somewhat  widened.  By  this  compromise  the 
trouble  is  patched  up,  though  the  patch  is  decid- 
edly visible.  The  modulus  controlling  the  whole 
Temple  is  set  aside  twice  at  each  corner  both  in 
the  Frieze  and  the  Peristyle,  that  is,  eight  times 


234  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN, 

in  each.  The  same  discord  gets  inside  the  Tem- 
ple also,  since  the  ceiling  is  determined  by  this 
outer  arrangement. 

We  see  from  Vitruvius,  whose  views  are  taken 
from  his  Greek  authorities,  that  the  foreofoinff 
difficulty  was  present  in  all  its  fullness  to  the 
subtle  minds  of  the  Greek  architects,  at  least  of 
the  later  ones.  It  is  said  that  Hermogenes,  an 
architect  belonging  to  the  time  of  Alexander  the 
Great,  having  collected  his  material  for  building 
a  Doric  Temple,  transformed  it  into  an  Ionic 
one,  seemingly  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of  the 
time.  The  anecdote  may  well  bear  testimony  to 
the  fact  that  the  Doric  Order  had  reached  its 
end,  which  is  also  the  end  of  the  independent 
Hellenic  nation  in  the  empire  of  Macedon.  The 
national  Column  has  found  a  substitute.  But 
we  must  understand  that  this  outer  rejection  has 
for  its  cause  an  inner  decadence;  the  Doric 
Column  and  the  Greek  City-State  are  both 
transcended. 

With  right  instinct  the  Greek  architect  insisted 
that  the  vertical  lines  of  the  Triglyph  must  con- 
clude each  side  of  the  Frieze,  which  would 
otherwise  seem  incomplete  and  also  would  be 
weakened  in  its  up-bearing  character.  But  this 
arrangement  is  what  produced  the  before-men- 
tioned difficulty.  So  the  architect  distributed 
this  Doric  discord  by  a  compromise  somewhat 
like  that  of  Bach,  who  distributed  the  musical 


THE  IONIC  OBDEB.  235 

discord  of  his  piano  scale  by  means  of  his  so- 
called  temperament,  and  thus  rendered  it  imper- 
ceptible. 

3.  The  Doric  Peristyle.  The  difficulty  of  the 
self -returning  row  of  Columns  called  the  Peristyle 
has  now  become  evident.  At  every  one  of  the 
four  turns,  both  before  and  after,  it  has  broken  its 
regular  gait,  its  ordered  movement.  It  has  been 
determined  from  without  by  the  Triglyph  and 
thus  has  suffered  a  breach  in  its  freedom.  In 
this  way  the  Doric  Peristyle  with  its  Order  shows 
itself  restrained,  restricted  by  an  external  power 
like  Fate,  being  held  back  from  its  natural 
development  and  cramped  up  at  the  corners. 

Evidently  the  next  attack  will  be  upon  that 
fatal  Triglyph,  discord-producing,  prophetic  of 
Hellenic  dissolution.  This  attack  will  be  made 
by  the  Greek  of  another  mental  cast ;  in  fact,  it 
already  been  made  almost  cotemporaneously  with 
the  rise  of  the  Doric  Peristyle.  The  Ionic 
Order  will  quite  obliterate  that  troublesome 
Doric  Frieze,  reducing  it  to  hardly  more  than  an 
Architrave,  whose  nature  however  may  be  partly 
concealed  by  figures  painted  and  chiseled. 

(II.)  The  Ionic  Order. — The  rule  of  the 
Triglyph  over  intercolumniation  is  broken  down 
by  the  Ionic  Order,  which  in  this  respect  restores 
the  authority  of  the  modulus  throughout  the 
Peristyle  and  indeed  throughout  the  whole  struc- 
ture.    At  once  we  feel  the  expansion,  the  free- 


236  ABCHITEGTUBE— EUROPEAN, 

dom  which  comes  of  making  the  law  universal. 
The  pinched-up  corner  is  released  from  its  ex- 
ternal constraint,  and  assumes  its  natural  organic 
shape  —  a  liberation  which  runs  through  the 
whole  Temple  and  transforms  its  character. 

Accordingly  we  may  expect  the  Ionic  Order  to 
bring  about  some  corresponding  changes  in 
other  regards.  We  noted  that  the  Doric  Col- 
umn with  all  its  manly  vigor  was  still  somewhat 
undeveloped,  uncivilized,  a  little  rude  even  in  the 
Parthenon.  It  is  too  brusque,  too  abrupt,  too 
impolite  without  a  Base  for  reconciling  and 
smoothing  over  the  sudden  transition  to  the 
round  Shaft  plumped  down  directly  upon  the 
oblong  Stylobat.  Just  a  little  too  frank  for  the 
polite  society  which  has  risen  in  every  Greek 
city,  particularly  if  it  be  of  Ionic  origin. 

1.  The  Ionic  Column,  Hence  it  comes  that 
the  Base  of  the  Ionic  Column  is  provided  with 
three  main  transitional  forms —  Plinth,  Torus 
and  Scotia  —  which  are  repeated  and  diversified 
and  commingled  with  other  mouldings  almost  to 
infinity  in  the  older  monuments,  so  that  it  may  be 
said  that  the  ancient  Ionic  bases  seek  to  differ 
from  one  another .  All  the  neat  little  phrases  of 
polite  intercourse,  pretty  enough  but  often  quite 
meaningless,  seem  to  find  here  their  architectural 
counterpart. 

The  height  of  the  Ionic  Column  varied  from 
six  to  eight  diameters,  though   it   is   known    to 


i:he  ionic  OitDEn.  237 

have  reached  even  nine  and  a  half  diameters. 
The  intercolumniation  was  about  two  diameters. 
Thus  the  Column  with  its  facade  is  growing  more 
slender,  graceful,  feminine,  and  also  effeminate, 
the  stern  Dorian  would  say.  In  fact,  a  common- 
place of  Greek  Architecture  calls  the  Doric 
Order  the  male,  and  the  Ionic  the  female.  This 
same  tendency  is  seen  in  the  increased  number  of 
flutings  of  the  Shaft,  usually  twenty-four  to  the 
Doric  sixteen  or  even  eight  (octagonal),  also 
deeper  and  rounder.  Thus  the  up-bearing  mo- 
tive is  emphasized,  giving  to  the  whole  greater 
ease,  lightness,  joy,  less  severity,  yea  less 
earnestness  in  sustaining  the  burden  of  existence. 
Also  there  is  less  silent  endurance,  more  demon- 
stration, show,  exploitation,  perchance  more 
vanity  (which  is  surely  the  right  of  the  female 
Column). 

Thus  the  Ionic  Column  claims  and  receives  a 
Base  for  itself.  But  even  more  important  than 
the  new  base  is  its  difference  from  the  Doric 
Capital  whose  rather  stolid  undeveloped  char- 
acter now  blossoms  out  into  amazing  forms. 
Particularly  the  projecting  echinus,  hitherto 
round  seems  to  break  out  of  its  secret  nest,  and 
curl  back  into  itself  like  a  snail-shell,  or  better, 
like  the  two  horns  of  a  ram,  a  set  of  two  such 
horns  connected  together  being  on  each  side  of 
the  Capital.     They  are  called  Volutes,  and  with 


238  ABOHITECTURE—  EUBOPEAN. 

them    comes    the    chief    trouble    for   the    Ionic 
Order. 

2.  The  Ionic  Volute.  This  is  the  part  which 
we  select  for  emphasis,  since  it  is  the  member 
which  brings  separation  into  the  Ionic  Order  and 
final  dissolution.  Herein  it  is  like  the  Triglyph 
in  the  Doric  Order.  But  now  the  Ionic  Column 
on  its  side  finds  its  limit.  Having  released  the 
Doric  Peristyle  from  the  cramp  at  the  corner  and 
moved  ahead  in  right  proportion,  it  finds  that  it 
cannot  make  the  turn  to  form  its  Peristyle  with- 
out a  shrill  discord,  a  veritable  clash  in  the  Cap- 
ital at  the  corner.  -The  Volute  proper  with  its 
scroll  cannot  be  seen  otherwise  than  by  a  front 
view,  and  both  of  them  must  be  seen;  the  side 
view  presents  to  the  eye  only  a  meaningless 
round  roller  without  any  suggestion  of  bearing 
up  under  the  superincumbent  pressure.  Unless 
we  see  the  Capital  curling  itself  up  in  the  two 
Volutes,  one  on  each  side,  to  endure  the  burden, 
we  miss  its  whole  significance.  But  when  we 
turn  the  corner  of  the  Peristyle,  we  obtain  merely 
a  sorry  side-view  of  the  one  Volute,  which  goes 
out  into  blank  insignificance,  unless  the  other 
coil  be  made  to  turn  around  with  us  and  present 
its  spiral  still  to  our  vision.  And  this  is  what  the 
Greek  did,  in  order  to  keep  both  his  Volutes 
fronting  the  spectator  from  every  side  of  the 
Peristyle.  But  he  made  the  four  corner  columns 
abnormal,  veritable  monstrosities,  by  dislocating 


fHE  lOmC  ORDER.  239 

the  two  pairs  of  Volutes  in  relation  to  each 
other. 

Thus  the  Ionic  Order  having  solved  the"  Doric 
problem  by  doing  away  with  the  Triglyph  and 
restoring  the  modulus,  finds  its  limit  in  the  Capital 
and  becomes  subject  to  that  remorseless  Dialectic 
before  mentioned.  The  Dorian,  so  devoted  to 
legality,  is  driven  to  break  his  own  law;  the 
Ionian,  not  so  legal,  but  devoted  to  outer  form, 
is  driven  to  deform  the  most  unique  member  of 
his  Order,  the  Capital.  Thus  the  rent  goes 
through  the  central  point  of  character  in  each 
case. 

3.  The  Ionic  Peristyle.  The  Volutes  prop- 
erly allow  only  a  consecutive  row  of  columns,  the 
Colonnade.  The  self-returning  row,  the  Peri- 
style, becomes  very  difficult  for  the  Ionic  Column. 
The  two  parallel  pairs  of  Volutes  in  the  Capital 
are  beautifully  adopted  for  succeeding  one  an- 
other on  a  straight  line ;  but  the  limitation  be- 
comes manifest  when  the  turn  in  the  PeristyTe 
has  to  be  made.  The  Doric  Peristyle  (and  we 
may  add  the  Doric  character)  had  no  such 
trouble. 

This  limitation  was  known  to  the  old  Greek 
who  was  urged  by  an  inner  necessity  to  transcend 
it,  not  by  relapsing  to  the  Doric  but  by  creating 
a  new  Order.  The  Ionic  Order  would  do  for  a 
colonnade  simply,  or  for  those  temples  which 
did   not  require  a  Peristyle    (as   the  prostylos, 


240  AUCHITJSOTURE  —  EUROPE  AK. 

amphipi^ostylos ,  and  templum  in  antis).  But 
such  structures  were  felt  by  the  Greek  to  be  in- 
complete, not  truly  Hellenic.  Hence  there  is 
developed  a  new  Order  for  meeting  the  Ionic 
problem. 

(HI.)  The  Corinthian  Order.  —  At  once  let 
us  say  that  the  Corinthian  Order  has  been  un- 
duly disparaged  and  abused  by  modern  writers  on 
Architecture,  who  in  the  main  regard  it  as  a 
degenerate  specimen  of  decadent  Greece,  as  a 
mere  mixture  of  other  Orders  and  lacking  in 
originality  and  force.  That  it  shows  increasing 
refinement  and  luxury  approaching  effeminacy 
we  shall  have  to  grant;  but  we  emphatically 
affirm  also  that  it  is  an  original  evolution  of  the 
Greek  architectonic  genius,  quite  as  necessary 
and  as  independent  as  either  of  the  two  preced- 
ing Orders,  and  also  possessed  of  as  much  in- 
dividuality. Certainly  it  has  shown  itself  to  be 
the  most  abiding  and  universal  of  the  three 
Orders,  having  been  employed  more  by  other 
peoples,  and  being  still  to-day  the  favorite  Greek 
Order  for  practical  purposes.  Such  a  record 
does  not  bear  testimony  to  inferiority.  It  has 
an  eternal  element  greater  than  either  Doric  or 
Ionic,  and  this  is  what  we  are  particularly  to 
see. 

Very  distinctly  does  the  Corinthian  Order 
manifest  itself  to  be  the  third  and  completing 
stage  in  the   movement    of   the   three    Hellenic 


THE  COBINTHIAN  OBDEB.  241 

Orders.  Without  it  Greek  Architecture  would 
be  a  torso,  beautiful,  but  broken  off  at  a  vital 
point.  But  with  the  Corinthian  Order  it  has  a 
completeness  of  development  which  makes  the 
contemplation  of  it  as  a  whole  more  satisfying 
than  the  view  of  any  individual  specimen  of  its 
construction,  though  this  is  not  to  be  dispensed 
with.  For  we  see  that  the  three  Hellenic  Orders 
together  constitute  a  psychical  process  which 
carries  the  mind  out  of  these  forms  beyond  into 
their  primordial  source,  and  brings  us  into  com- 
munion with  the  ultimate  creative  principle  not 
only  of  Architecture  but  of  all  things  ( the  Pam- 
psychosis).  The  Corinthian  Order,  therefore, 
in  the  deepest  sense  belongs  to  the  totality  of 
Greek  Orders  which  through  it  returns  into  itself 
and  thus  rounds  out  the  cycle  of  their  develop- 
ment. We  may  indeed  conceive  the  three  Hel- 
lenic Orders  as  forming  together  a  kind  of 
Peristyle  around  the  ideal  Greek  Temple,  which 
can  only  be  seen  as  universal,  as  the  creative 
Norm  manifesting  itself  primarily  in  this  Peri- 
style of  Orders. 

And  yet  the  Corinthian  Order  will  also  mani- 
fest its  limitation,  like  the  other  two  Orders,  but 
such  limitation  will  reach  beyond  Triglyph  and 
Capital,  and  become  universal,  showing  itself  to  be 
the  limitation  of  the  whole  Hellenic  Norm,  which 
thus  will  produce  no  more  Orders  hereafter  (the 
Tuscan    and   Composite   being   essentially  con- 

16 


242  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

glomerates).  Hence  with  the  Corinthian  Order 
the  Hellenic  Norm  has  reached  its  goal,  being 
no  longer  productive  of  Orders,  which  produc- 
tivity was  the  very  life  of  it,  and  the  ground  of 
its  existence.  With  it  the  Greek  Peristyle  of 
Orders  returns  into  itself  and  is  finished  forever. 

There  is  properly  no  Corinthian  Entablature 
since  the  problem  of  the  Entablature  was  solved 
in  its  way  by  the  Ionic  Order,  and  this  solution 
remains.  Historically  the  Corinthian  is  the  last 
developed  of  the  three  Hellenic  Orders ;  for  this 
reason  its  history  has  been  supposed  to  be  bet- 
ter known.  Its  name  is  said  to  come  from  the 
city  of  its  origin  (Corinth) ;  also  the  architect 
who  originated  it  is  personally  designated  (Cal- 
limachus).  Likewise  the  time  of  its  earliest 
employment,  though  not  of  its  birth,  may  be 
approximately  stated  as  the  middle  of  the  fifth 
century  B.  C.  These  dates,  however,  as  well  as 
the  name  of  the  originator,  are  subject  to  re- 
vision, which  is  likely  to  come  through  new  dis- 
coveries. 

1.  The  Corinthian  Column.  This  grapples 
with  the  Ionic  difficulty  already  mentioned  —  the 
two  parallel  pairs  of  Volutes  in  the  Capital,  which 
interfere  so  seriously  with  the  Peristyle.  The 
Corinthian  Capital  breaks  up  the  pairing  of  the 
Volutes  and  makes  each  of  these  independent, 
causing  them  to  spring  directly  from  the  Col- 
umn at  four  places  equi-distant,  and   making  of 


THE  COBINTHIAN  OBDEB.  243 

them  a  squared  outline.  Thus  the  front-view  of 
the  Corinthian  Column  is  the  same  as  the  side- 
view  ;  it  can  be  placed  at  the  corner  without  any 
change  either  in  the  Capital  or  in  the  intercol- 
umniation.  Manifestly  this  solves  both  the 
Doric  and  the  Ionic  troubles,  that  of  the  Triglyph 
and  that  of  the  Volute.  We  can  say  that  the 
Corinthian  Column  is  a  return  to  the  independ- 
ence of  the  Doric,  through  overcoming  the  inner 
scission  of  the  Ionic.  Thus  it  is  not  a  reversion 
or  retrogression,  but  a  grand  advance  through 
which  the  process  of  the  Hellenic  Orders  com- 
pletes itself.  But  while  the  Corinthian  Column 
shows  the  completeness  of  Greek  Architecture, 
it  also  heralds  its  approaching  end. 

Another  important  fact  about  the  Corinthian 
Capital  is  its  vegetable  tendency;  it  breaks 
out  into  leaves  and  even  flowers,  often  with  a 
festal  profusion.  Herein  it  reaches  back  to 
Egypt  and  suggests  the  lotus  Column.  The 
echinus  with  its  projecting  coils  supports  the 
heavy  Architrave  above ;  but  when  this  duty  is 
done,  the  rest  of  the  Capital  wreathes  itself  in 
foliage,  chiefly  of  the  Acanthus,  having  some- 
times as  many  as  four  rows  or  garlands  encirc- 
ling itself.  This  organic  growth  was  previously 
suppressed  in  the  Column,  but  now  the  rigid 
grip  is  relaxed  and  a  floral  festivity  breaks  out, 
celebrating  freedom  from  the  long  restraint. 
Decoration  begins   to  assert  itself,  though  fes- 


244  AB  CHITE  0  TUBE  —  EUB  OPE  AN. 

tooning   the    stern  hand   of    the   law,    for   the 
modulus  is  still  present  and  is  followed. 

The  height  of  the  Corinthian  Column  rises  to 
ten  or  twelve  diameters ;  the  intercolumniation  is 
also  increased  in  proportion.  The  flutings  are 
usually  twenty-four  in  number.  The  result  is  a 
still  greater  slenderness  and  lightness  than  in  the 
Ionic.  These  tall  forms  bursting  out  into  leaf- 
age at  the  top  seem  quite  impatient  of  the  Archi- 
trave and  independent;  still  they  are  easily 
associated  in  the  Peristyle  which  indeed  reveals 
their  happiest  employment.  But  the  widening 
of  the  intercolumnar  spaces  has  called  up  a  new 
peril  which  assails  this  Order  and  limits  its  use, 
and  finally  will  reduce  the  whole  Order  to  an 
ornament  in  the  Roman  world.  It  may  well  be 
said  that  this  Eoman  use  of  the  Corinthian  Order 
is  foretold  by  the  decorative  foliage  of  the  Col- 
umn. The  Doric  seriousness  of  the  capital  in 
sustaining  the  great  burden  above  is  rather 
laughed  at  by  that  Corinthian  play  of  leaves ;  but 
the  burden  is  there  still,  and  even  greater  than 
before.  Moreover,  the  Corinthian  Order  will 
carry  with  it  all  the  other  Greek  Orders  into  this 
realm  of  ornamentation  at  Rome. 

2.  The  Corinthian  Architrave.  Already  it 
has  been  said  that  the  Architrave  was  the  weak 
point  in  the  whole  trabeate-columnar  system, 
with  its  tie-beam  always  becoming  longer  and 
more   heavily  laden.     The  Doric  Order  with  its 


THE  COBINTHIAN  OBDEB.  245 

narrow  intercolumniation  and  its  thick  heavy 
members  in  the  Column  and  in  the  Entabkiture 
guarded  specially  against  this  weakness,  which  it 
seemed  to  anticipate  by  its  very  precaution. 
The  Ionic  Order  by  its  ever-increasing  inter- 
columnar  spaces  calls  vividly  to  mind  the  limi- 
tation of  the  connecting  tie-beam.  But  the 
Corinthian  Order,  pushing  still  further  the  dis- 
tances between  the  Columns,  was  unquestionably 
suspected  by  the  Greek  architect,  who  trans- 
mitted his  suspicion  to  the  Roman. 

Doubtless  the  finest  example  of  the  Corinthian 
Order  whicb  has  come  down  to  our  time  is 
seen  in  the  choragic  monument  of  Lysicrates 
at  Athens,  erected  about  334  B.  C.  The 
Architrave  is  supported  largely  by  the  round 
wall  from  which  the  beautiful  Corinthian 
columns  or  rather  half -columns  seem  to  be 
emerging.  If  this  monument  may  be  taken  to 
represent  the  view  of  the  Athenian  architect, 
he  distrusted  the  Corinthian  column  as  the  sup- 
porter of  the  Architrave.  Another  instance  may 
be  given  from  a  still  earlier  classic  time.  About 
380  B.  C.  Scop  as  built  the  Temple  of  Athena 
Alea  at  Tegea.  The  three  Orders  were  em- 
ployed in  the  following  manner,  according  to  the 
statement  of  Pausanias :  the  Peristyle  was  Ionic, 
the  inside  lower  columns  were  Doric,  while  the 
gallery  resting  on  them  from  above  was  Corin- 
thian.    This  is   a  very  significant  arrangement 


246  ARCHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

of  these  Orders  by  a  great  artist :  the  stout,  thick 
Doric  is  made  to  bear  not  only  its  own  burden 
but  also  the  Corinthian  whose  Architrave  evi- 
dently supports  little  or  nothing,  while  the 
Ionic  is  turned  outward  with  no  task  but  to  up- 
hold its  own  Entablature.  Such  was  the  very 
suggestive  commentary  of  the  old  Greek  archi- 
tect upon  the  three  Hellenic  Orders.  With  time, 
however,  this  little  Corinthian  colonnade  will 
come  down  from  its  perch,  will  pass  outside, 
and  make  itself  peristylar. 

3.  The  Corinthian  Peristyle.  This  is  cer- 
tainly the  most  easy,  natural  Peristyle  of  the 
three.  It  is  not  compelled  to  break  the  law  of 
intercolumniation  by  an  outside  power  (the 
Triglyph),  nor  is  it  forced  to  make  a  monstrosity 
out  of  the  corner  column  in  order  to  produce 
harmony  in  the  other  columns  as  we  have  seen 
in  the  Ionic  Order.  The  Peristyle  has  now  per- 
fected itself  ill  its  columnar  arrangement,  but 
develops  the  original  imperfection  of  the  Archi- 
trave, which  is  in  the  Hellenic  Norm  from  the 
start. 

Moreover,  the  Corinthian  Capital  is  essentially 
four-sided  from  spiral  to  spiral,  and  thus  in  out- 
line takes  the  rectangular  form  of  the  total 
Peristyle,  to  which  it  is  now  completely  ad- 
justed. The  strong  Doric  abacus  is  therefore 
not  needed  in  the  Corinthian  capital,  and  hence 
is    not    so    prominent.     Again  w^e  see  that  the 


THE  COBINTEIAN  OBDEB.  247 

Corinthian  Order  in  its  significant  member, 
the  Capital,  goes  back  to  the  Doric,  but 
takes  the  Ionic  along  and  unites  the  two  in  a 
new  adjustment,  together  with  its  own  pecu- 
liar vegetable  decoration.  We  may,  therefore, 
read  in  the  Corinthian  Order  the  need  and  the 
effort  for  reconciliation  between  Dorian  and 
Ionian,  not  only  in  Architecture,  but  also  in 
Institutions.  For  the  intense  dualism  between 
the  Doric  and  Ionic  stocks  had  rent  asunder 
Hellas  during  the  Peloponnesian  War,  and  left 
it  divided,  weakened,  and  exposed  to  the  alien  in- 
vader. A  Pan-Hellenic  patriotism,  struggling  to 
reform  and  unite  in  new  ties  the  Greek  City- 
State,  shows  itself  at  this  time  on  many  sides, 
particularly  in  the  writings  of  the  philosophers, 
the  universal  men  of  the  age.  Plato's  Republic 
is  an  attempt  to  re-construct  the  shattered  Greek 
institutional  world.  Aristotle's  Work  on  Poli- 
tics seeks  in  its  deepest  tendency  to  restore  the 
declining  communal  life  of  Hellas.  But  such 
reformatory  attempts,  however  praiseworthy, 
were  vain;  in  these  works  themselves  a  close 
analysis  will  find  the  very  weakness  which  they 
sought  to  correct,  the  same  disease  which  they 
sought  to  cure. 

The  Corinthian  Order  represents  in  Archi- 
tecture this  same  tendency  to  heal  the  troubles, 
which  had  arisen  in  both  the  Doric  and  Ionic 
Orders,    by  a  new  reconciling    principle.     It  is 


248  ABC  HITEC  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

wonderful  how  completely  it  eliminates  the  diffi- 
culties which  we  have  seen  in  the  Doric  Order 
as  well  as  in  the  Ionic.  But  all  the  more  strik- 
ingly does  it  bring  to  light  the  inherent  weakness 
of  the  original  Greek  Norm  itself,  that  primor- 
dial limitation  of  the  total  Hellenic  Spirit  under- 
lying both  Dorian  and  Ionian  in  all  their  deeds 
and  works,  being  born  with  the  birth  of  Hellas 
and  brino^ing  it  to  its  conclusion. 

Such  is  the  cycle  of  the  three  Hellenic  Orders 
which,  taken  together  in  their  thought  and  de- 
velopment, show  a  symmetry  and  completeness 
which  must  also  be  considered  classic.  A  cer- 
tain serenity  speaks  out  of  all  these  Orders  as 
they  evolve  from  form  to  form  without  strain 
and  pain,  unfolding  as  naturally  and  easily  as 
the  flower.  The  whole  is  simplicity  itself .  That 
simple  parallelopipedon  capped  by  a  triangular 
prism,  has  indeed  reached  the  limit  of  its  form- 
creating  power,  but  it  has  given  the  start  and 
genetic  Norm  to  European  Architecture.  Its 
inner  plastic  energy  wanes  as  pure  Hellenic,  but 
it  will  still  be  active  under  other  shapes  in  other 
lands,  and  from  this  point  of  view  its  work, 
instead  of  being    finished,  is  barely  begun. 

C.  The  Hellenic  City. 
We  have  now  reached  the  third  stage  or  move- 
ment of  the  Hellenic  Period  of  Architecture  —  the 
stage  whose  general  tendency  is  to  bring  together 


THE  HELLENIC  CITY.  249 

the  separated  Orders  and  to  form  them  into  an 
architectural  totality.  Some  indications  of  this 
movement  we  can  discern  in  numerous  localities  at 
different  times .  Each  city  must  h  ave  taken  pride 
in  possessing  a  group  of  fine  public  buildings 
constructed  after  the  Hellenic  Norm.  But  there 
was  one  city  which  outstripped  all  the  rest  in  the 
beauty,  grandeur,  and  number  of  its  structures  — 
Athens.  Still  to-day  it  contains  the  finest  speci- 
mens of  ancient  Greek  Architecture,  though  they 
be  partially  in  ruins. 

Continental  Hellas  threw  out  its  rim  of  colo- 
nies, forming  a  kind  of  colonial  Peristyle  antece- 
dent to  the  architectural  one,  toward  the  four 
points  of  the  compass,  around  the  old  dear  Cella, 
namely  the  mother-country.  These  colonies  un- 
doubtedly took  with  them  the  column  more  or 
less  complete,  but  they  developed,  if  they  did  not 
originate,  the  Peristyle,  and  made  it  national. 
Both  in  its  Ionic  and  in  its  Doric  form,  it  belongs 
properly  to  colonies,  one  to  the  Eastern,  and  the 
other  to  the  Western,  group. 

Now  begins  a  counter  movement,  the  centripe- 
tal ;  the  colonial  Peristyle  starts  to  move  back  to 
the  mother-country,  there  is  a  return  of  the  colum- 
nar principle  in  its  new  development  from  the 
outlying  Hellenic  periphery  to  the  original 
generative  center.  This  return  did  not  take 
place  of  a  sudden ;  one  of  its  earliest  and  purely 
imitated  examples  is  the  old  Doric  Temple,  a  few 


250  ABCHITECTURE  —  EUBGPEA2T. 

of  whose  columns  may  still  be  seen  at  Corinth, 
Here,  too,  we  may  place,  if  anywhere,  that  very 
doubtful  Peristyle  of  the  Heraeon  at  Olympia, 
considering  it  to  be  an  early  instance  of  the 
peristylar  principle  derived  from  the  Greek 
colonies. 

But  what  brought  about  its  gradual  acceptance 
in  Hellas  proper?  The  Oriental  question  was 
pressing  closer  and  closer;  at  least  from  the  time 
of  Darius,  if  not  from  that  of  Cyrus,  it  was 
manifest  to  continental  Hellas  that  there  would 
have  to  be  a  reckoning  with  the  great  empire  of 
Persia.  The  Greek  (Ionic)  colonies  of  Asia 
Minor  were  already  subjected  (in  the  last  half  of 
the  Sixth  Century  B.  C).  The  Greek  (Doric) 
colonies  of  Sicily  were  engagedin  a  furious  strug- 
gle with  the  empire  of  Carthage,  fighting  for  the 
Hellenic  City-State  and  its  Gods.  Now  the  peri- 
stylar Temple  arose,  or  at  least  became  national, 
the  emblem  of  the  Greek  race,  on  this  border- 
land of  warfare  against  the  Orient.  That 
columnar  Peristyle  sprang  from  the  soul  of  the 
time  and  its  deepest  conflict.  It  signifies  the 
free  individual  standing  upright  by  himself,  yet 
in  association  with  his  fellows,  the  whole  consti- 
tuting the  Greek  community  whose  enormous 
burden  of  maintaining  Hellenism  is  indicated  by 
the  heavy  forms,  particularly  of  the  Doric  col- 
umns of  Sicily. 

The  same  conflict  with  the  Orient  was  drawing 


THE  HELLENIC  CITY.  251 

nearer  and  nearer  to  Greece  proper ;  the  struggle 
of  the  colonies  was  becoming  hers,  and  she 
showed  a  consciousness  of  the  fact  in  a  number 
of  ways,  one  of  which  was  the  adoption  of  the 
Peristyle  in  the  new  Temples  of  the  Gods,  par- 
ticularly the  Doric  Peristyle,  which  was  really 
the  early  Hellenic  or  national  form.  At  last  the 
grand  collision  broke  forth,  the  Persian  was 
expelled  by  the  associated  Hellenic  City-States, 
chief  of  which  was  undoubtedly  Athens,  though 
not  the  ostensible  leader. 

Not  till  after  the  Persian  war,  when  the 
Orient  is  thrown  back  upon  itself  in  utter  defeat, 
does  the  great  concentration  of  the  best  Greek 
Architecture  take  place  in  the  one  city,  Athens, 
and  even  on  one  spot  of  that  city,  on  the  Acrop- 
olis. Now  this  concentration  does  not  mean 
simply  that  many  buildings  were  erected  in  that 
one  place,  for  other  cities  at  the  same  time, 
before,  and  afterward,  gathered  their  public 
edifices  in  a  group,  but  it  does  mean  a  concen- 
tration of  excellence.  Athens  did  not  discover 
the  Peristyle,  but  she  perfected  it ;  she  was  not 
the  first  to  employ  the  Column,  but  she  made 
the  most  beautiful  Column  that  has  yet  ap- 
peared. All  the  constructive  principles  of 
Greek  Architecture,  even  the  mouldings,  were 
brought  to  her,  and  she  transfigured  them.  That 
is  indeed  her  work.  The  transfiguration  of 
Greek  Architecture  and  of  all  Greek  Art  and  of 


252  ABGIIITEC  TUBE— EUROPEAN. 

all  Greek  expression  took  place  on  and  around 
the  Athenian  Acropolis  in  the  middle  years  of 
the  Fifth  Century  B.  C. 

It  was  not  Greek  Architecture  alone  that  re- 
ceived during  this  tiine  the  complete  develop- 
ment and  utterance  of  every  possibility  that  lay 
within  it  originally.  Every  kind  of  artistic  ex- 
pression seemed  to  burst  out  at  once  in  a  supreme 
excellence.  Dramatic  Poetry  rose  to  its  highest 
ancient  point ;  in  fact  an  analogy  can  be  traced 
between  the  three  great  Athenian  dramatists  and 
the  three  Hellenic  Orders;  Aeschylus  has  the 
Doric  cast,  Sophocles  the  Ionic,  and  Euripides 
the  Corinthian.  And  of  the  great  orators,  some 
were  Doric  in  character,  particularly  Pericles  as 
represented  by  Thucydides ;  others  were  Ionic, 
while  the  later  rhetoricians  were  usually  Corin- 
thian, and  even  Koman-Corinthian  in  style. 
Sculpture  and  Painting  (it  is  said,  for  there  is 
nothing  left  of  its  coloring)  attained  their  high- 
est ancient  bloom  during  this  same  Epoch. 
History,  too,  shot  up  in  its  mightiest  manifesta- 
tions, though  with  a  curious  inversion,  for  Thu- 
cydides the  Athenian  is  more  Doric  in  character 
and  style,  though  writing  in  the  Attic  dialect, 
while  Herodotus  the  Dorian  by  birth  is  more 
Ionic,  having  written  his  great  work  in  the  Ionic 
dialect  of  Asia  Minor.  Xenophon  the  third  (espe- 
cially in  his  Hellenica)  is  much  weaker;  he  may 


THE  HELLENIC  CITY.  253 

be  deemed  to  be  of  the  very  simple  and  very 
slender  Corinthian  Order. 

But  the  deepest  and  perhaps  the  most  lasting 
expression  of  this  great  Athenian  period  is  the 
philosophic,  which  completes  itself  in  the  mighty 
Triad  —  Socrates,  Plato,  and  Aristotle.  Philos^ 
ophy  is  not  simple  expression,  but  is  the  expres- 
sion of  all  expression,  is  expression  seeking  to 
grasp  itself  and  to  formulate  the  meaning  of 
itself.  Athenian  Philosophy  thus  has  an  univer- 
sal element  in  its  individual,  trying  to  utter  in 
its  particular  way  what  this  universal  underlying 
principle  is,  which  is  driving  the  whole  age  to 
expression.  The  architectural  analogy  we  may 
likewise  apply  to  these  three  philosophers,  with 
due  exceptions :  Socrates  declares  his  sympathy 
with  Doric  institutions  and  his  life  is  more  a 
Doric  one  in  its  simplicity  and  its  primitiveness ; 
Plato  in  spite  of  his  expressed  Dorism,  is  Ionic 
in  style  and  method  and  character,  yea  in  his 
philosophy,  we  hold — that  dualism  of  his  being 
peculiarly  Ionic  and  Athenian.  Aristotle,  the 
third  of  the  group,  is  not  Corinthian  in  style  as 
far  as  we  can  judge  by  the  works  which  have 
come  down  to  us,  though  some  of  his  lost  writ- 
ings may  have  been  of  a  different  cast.  Still 
even  Aristotle  can  be  seen  to  have  his  Corinthian 
element  in  the  fact  that  he  solves  in  his  way  the 
problems  of  both  Socrates  and  Plato,  answering 
indeed  the  latter 's    dualism    and    then    falling 


254  ABC  HITEC  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN, 

into  a  deeper  dualism  of  his  own  (see  our 
Ancient  European  Philosophy,  pp.  444-452). 
This  same  characteristic  we  noticed  in  the  Corin- 
thian Order :  after  meeting  the  Doric  and  Ionic 
difficulties,  it  brought  to  light  its  own  limitation, 
which  is  that  of  the  Hellenic  Norm  itself.  And 
so  it  is  essentially  with  Aristotle's  Philosophy. 

We  have  run  these  parallels  of  the  Arts  and 
Sciences  with  the  Hellenic  Orders  —  Doric, 
Ionic,  and  Corinthian — for  the  purpose  of  indi- 
cating that  they  all  spring  from  the  same  great 
movement,  from  the  same  universal  Greek  spirit, 
of  which  Architecture  is  but  one  manifestation. 
Such  is  the  grand  totality  which  concentrates  at 
Athens,  and  passes  through  that  Athenian  center 
for  its  final  perfection.  The  finest  spiritual 
essence  of  the  whole  Hellenic  world  gathers  there 
for  its  last  and  highest  transfiguration. 

We  naturally  ask,  Why  just  Athens  and  Athens 
alone?  She  is  only  one  among  many  Greek  City- 
States,  but  she  has  shown  herself  to  be  the  most 
perfect  one  in  performing  the  supreme  Hellenic 
deed,  the  expulsion  of  the  Persian.  Her  work, 
in  fact,  reaches  far  beyond  Hellas:  Marathon 
may  well  be  deemed  the  primal  European  act, 
separating  a  new-born  world  with  its  civilization 
and  its  institutions  from  the  Orient.  In  that 
seemingly  small  particular  deed  of  hers  lurks  a 
significance  of  the  widest,  farthest-reaching 
universality. 


THE  HELLENIC  CITY.  255 

Such  has  been  her  deed,  without  which  she 
would  be  nothino^  and  have  nothinor  to  tell. 
But  to  this  mighty  power  of  the  Will  she  adds 
even  a  mightier  power  of  the  Word;  all  expres- 
sion is  hers  by  a  kind  of  divine  birthright. 
That  is,  she  possesses  the  ability  to  make  every 
particular  utter  the  Universal ;  in  Art  this  is  the 
Beautiful,  in  Ethics  the  Good,  in  Philosophy 
the  True.  All  forms  of  Hellenic  expression, 
not  yet  fully  unfolded,  are  brought  to  her,  seem 
to  fly  to  her  as  to  their  magnet,  seeking  that 
perfection  which  is  verily  the  end  of  the  Uni- 
verse, is  God  Himself.  When  the  Marathonian 
deed  has  been  adequately  spoken  out,  we  shall 
have  Athenian  Literature,  History,  Philosophy, 
and  Art,  likewise  that  Athenian  Architecture  on 
the  Acropolis. 

That  which  united  the  Greeks,  making  them 
one  people  against  the  Barbarians  and  specially 
against  the  Orientals,  was  the  Greek  religion, 
for  they  had  no  political  union.  There  was  no 
common  State,  but  there  was  substantially  a 
common  Pantheon,  which  bound  them  together. 
Politics  in  Greece  always  produced  separation, 
religion  produced  unity  when  there  was  any. 
Such  was  the  tendency,  though  certainly  excep- 
tions in  both  ways  can  be  found.  The  great 
fact,  therefore,  is  that  the  Hellenic  Gods  were 
what  associated  and  unified  the  Greeks  both  as  a 
race    and  in   their   communities    taken    singly. 


256  ABCHITECTURE  — EUROPEAN. 

The  result  was  that  the  associated  Greeks  in  the 
period  of  their  highest  worth  and  activity,  built 
many  noble  Temples  to  the  Gods  who  associated 
them,  in  whom  they  felt  themselves  to  be  one 
race  or  even  one  city .  The  entire  Hellenic  stock 
contributed  to  re-build  the  fanes  at  Delphi  and 
at  Olympia,  when  these  had  been  destroyed,  as 
beino^  the  common  sanctuaries  of  all  the  Greeks. 
•But  especially  each  Greek  city  of  importance 
strove  to  erect  a  worthy  abode  of  the  God,  whose 
protection  and  whose  worship  made  them  a  city, 
a  distinctive  community.  Every  Hellenic  Tem- 
ple was,  accordingly,  the  creative  center  of  that 
Spirit  which  produces  the  institution,  and  the 
people  came  there  to  partake  of  that  Spirit  in 
order  to  renew  and  to  keep  renewing  their  insti- 
tutional life  as  distinct  from  their  merely  indi- 
vidual selfish  pursuits . 

At  this  point  we  again  reach  down  to  the 
thought  that  the  prime  function  of  Architecture 
is  to  build  the  Home  of  associated  Man, 
or  the  universal  Man  we  may  call  him, 
in  whom  all  the  city  is  one,  possibly  all 
the  nation  and  all  the  race.  And  so  Greek 
Architecture  is  to  build  the  Home  of  the  Greek 
Man  associated,  not  the  house  of  the  individual 
man,  which  must  be  a  trivial  thing  compared 
to  the  abode  of  the  total  city  or  of  all  the  na- 
tion. Finally  Athenian  Architecture  is  to  build 
the  Home   of  the  Athenians   associated    in  one 


THE  nELLENIC  CITY,  257 

community  with  its  peculiar  spirit,  with  its  own 
Will  and  Thought.  Such  is  the  Architecture 
which  is  now  to  appeal*  upon  the  Acropolis, 
making  the  latter  truly  the  institutional  dwelling- 
place  of  Athenian  Spirit. 

Thus  Athens  is  chosen  for  the  great  Archi- 
tectural manifestation  of  the  ao^es  —  who  chose 
it?  In  one  sense  it  chose  itself  through  its  own 
native  ability  and  activity.  Still  Athens  with 
all  its  Architecture  and  all  its  Art,  Science  and 
Philosophy  is  but  a  stage  of  a  greater  process 
which  calls  it  up,  develops  it,  and  then  dismisses 
it  from  existence.  So  it  is  not  the  Whole  but  a 
part  of  the  Whole  which  really  determines  it, 
and  makes  it  a  part  or  a  stage  of  itself.  Now 
Athenian  Art,  Poetry,  Philosophy,  each  and  all, 
are  striving  to  express  or  to  formulate  this  ulti- 
mate Totality  which  makes  Athens  in  all  her 
glory  but  a  phase  of  its  own  process.  This  is 
what  Phidias  sought  to  put  into  a  statue  and 
called  Zeus ;  Ictinus  doubtless  strove  to  build  for 
it  a  suitable  dwelling-place  which  we  know  under 
the  name  of  the  Parthenon.  It  is  that  Universal 
which  every  age  in  a  great  or  small  way  puts  into 
the  particular  form  belonging  to  such  age.  It  is 
the  process  of  the  All  (the  Pampsychosis)  which 
reflects  itself  in  that  fair  Athenian  world  as  a 
stage  of  its  own  self -evolution. 

At  Athens,  then,  there  was  a  time  when  the 
individual  easily,  quite  unconsciously  made  him- 

17 


25^    .  ARCHITECTURE  —  EUBOPEAN: 

self  the  representative  of  the  universe,  and  put 
that  same  character  into  all  his  works.  The  pres- 
ence of  the  Eternal  in  himself  and  in  his  city  he 
would  make  eternal  in  Art,  Poetry,  Philosophy. 
That  which  fills  him  and  determines  him  and  his 
world,  he  would  determine  in  his  individual  finite 
way.  On  the  Acropolis  we  feel  not  merely  in  the 
presence  of  Athenian  Spirit,  but  rather  of  the 
All  manifesting  itself  as  Athenian.  And  that  is 
still  for  us  the  divine  element  on  the  spot,  where 
we  can  detect  the  Pampsychosis  talking  Attic 
Greek  and  building  a  home  in  the  style  of 
Athenian  Architecture. 

A  brief  characterization  of  the  Acropolis  with 
the  structures  still  existing  on  it  may  now  be 
given.  These  can  be  grouped  from  various 
points  of  view,  but  we  shall  keep  in  line  with  the 
preceding  architectural  development  and  arrange 
them  according  to  the  Hellenic  Orders.  They 
show  great  variety,  but  all  of  them  lie  within  the 
Hellenic  Norm  in  their  construction. 

(I.)  The  Doric  Order.  —  It  has  already 
been  stated  that  Athens,  an  Ionic  city,  erected  in 
the  very  height  of  her  power  and  of  her  self- 
assertion  two  Doric  Temples,  which  are  still  the 
models  of  their  kind.  The  explanation  of  this 
strange  fact  is  that  Athens  did  not  regard  the 
Doric  Order  as  peculiarly  Dorian,  but  as  national, 
as  universally  Hellenic.  Doubtless  she  had 
another  name  for  it,  which  we  do  not  now  know. 


TBS  BBLLENtC  CITY.  259 

The  present  designation  came  later  when  the 
different  Orders  had  not  only  arisen  but  were 
discussed  and  described.  At  any  rate  Athens 
conceived  the  so-called  Doric  Order  as  the  primal 
Hellenic  one,  and  so  employed  it  in  her  two  chief 
Temples,  both  of  them  built  while  she  was  still  in 
the  fervor  of  her  great  patriotic  deed  done  not 
simply  for  herself  but  for  all  Hellas. 

The  Theseion  is  not  on  the  Acropolis  directly, 
but  on  a  spur  of  the  same  hill  not  far  off  and 
leading  up  to  it.  Hence  this  Temple  may  be 
reojarded  as  a  kind  of  overture  to  the  higher 
glories,  a  preparation  for  what  is  to  come.  The 
fact  that  it  is  dedicated  to  a  Hero  (Theseus)  and 
not  to  a  God,  may  be  the  reason  why  it  is  not 
placed  on  the  Olympian  apex  of  the  Acropolis, 
but  on  the  way  thereto.  It  is  still  the  best  pre- 
served Temple  coming  down  tons  from  antiquity 
and  one  of  the  oldest,  being  older  probably  than 
the  Parthenon.  It  is  also  the  best  proportioned 
specimen  of  Greek  Architecture,  being  the  most 
complete  realization  of  the  Hellenic  Norm  in 
existence,  better  in  this  respect  than  the  Parthe- 
non. It  has  six  columns  in  front  and  rear 
(Hexastyle)  and  thirteen  columns  on  the  sides, 
still  in  position  and  quite  perfect,  though  here 
and  there  the  marble  fluting  has  been  chipped 
off  by  a  cannon  ball  seemingly  during  some  of 
the  conflicts  which  have  surged  around  it  down 
the    ages.     The  time   of  its  erection  is  usually 


260  ABCHITEC  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAn. 

placed  about  365-70  B.  C,  and  its  originator  is 
stated  to  have  been  Cimon,  the  son  of  Miltiades, 
who  brought  the  bones  of  the  Athenian  hero 
Theseus  from  Scjros  and  built  this  sanctuary  in 
his  honor.  But  the  deeper  motive  of  the  Tem- 
ple springs  from  Marathon,  in  which  battle 
Theseus,  though  a  spectre,  was  seen  by  every 
Athenian  eye  smiting  the  foes  of  his  country 
and  of  his  race. 

We  shall  have  to  add  that  most  of  the  above 
points  have  been  contested.  Ludwig  Ross  a  good 
while  ago  denied  that  this  Temple  was  the  real 
Theseion,  and  recently  Dorpfeldhas  attempted  to 
prove  it  to  be  a  Temple  of  Hephaestus.  This 
last  view,  which  has  met  with  some  favor,  con- 
tradicts the  Metopes  of  the  Temple,  which  are 
wholly  devoted  to  the  contests  of  Hercules  and 
Theseus.  The  Frieze  of  the  Cella,  though 
almost  obliterated  in  places,  seems  to  have  the 
same  general  character.  The  Temple  is  an 
Heroon,  dedicated  to  the  Greek  hero  who  con- 
quered wild  men,  wild  beasts,  and  wild  Nature, 
representing  the  preparatory  stage  to  human 
cultivation.  In  this  light  it  may  be  regarded  as 
an  introduction  to  the  Acropolis,  the  home  of 
the  highest  divinity  of  Athens,  Pallas  Athena, 
who  is  also  to  be  housed  in  a  new  Temple. 

This  is  the  all-famous  Parthenon^  often 
regarded  as  the  most  beautiful  building  ever 
erected  by  human  hands.     It  lies  nearly  in  the 


THE  HELLENIG  CITY.  261 

center  of  the  Acropolis,  a  little  to  one  side  on 
the  south,  having  eight  columns  in  width  to  sev- 
enteen in  length.  Its  originator  was  the  states- 
man Pericles,  and  it  may  be  taken  as  the  best 
artistic  expression  of  the  man  along  with  his  city 
and  his  age.  The  date  of  its  completion  is  stated 
to  be  438  B.  C,  after  some  sixteen  years'  labor, 
having  been  begun  later  than  the  Theseion, 
though  some  authorities  place  the  construction 
of  the  Theseion  after  that  of  the  Parthenon, 
which  was  far  more  elaborately  finished  and  dec- 
orated than  the  former.  But  its  proportions  are 
not  so  perfect,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  increased 
width,  which  seems  already  to  be  transcending 
the  size  which  best  realizes  the  Hellenic  Norm. 
Of  course  upon  this  somewhat  subtle  question  of 
taste  there  are  different  opinions. 

The  names  of  its  architects  have  been  trans- 
mitted, Ictinus  (probably  the  chief)  and  Calli- 
crates.  But  the  greatest  artist  connected  with 
the  building  of  the  Parthenon  was  Phidias  the 
sculptor,  to  whom  is  specially  ascribed  its  varied 
plastic  ornament,  but  who  was  doubtless  the 
artistic  head  governing  the  entire  work.  During 
the  time  of  its  erection  Pericles  the  statesman 
must  have  known  that  the  conflict  of  Athens 
with  the  Doric  stock  under  the  leadership  of 
Sparta  could  not  be  put  oft  much  longer.  Still 
he  built  to  the  divine  Protectress  of  Athens  a 
Temple  which   we   call  Doric,  but  which  could 


262  ABGHITEGTUBE^  EUROPEAN. 

not  have  been  so  designated  by  any  Athenian  of 
that  day,  at  least  with  our  meaning  of  the  term. 
There  was  an  older  Parthenon  destroyed  by  the 
Persian  which  was  also  Doric,  as  can  be  seen  by 
the  fragments  still  existing  in  the  wall  of  the 
Acropolis.  The  second  Parthenon  like  the 
Theseion  sprang  from  Marathon  and  the  Persian 
War,  since  the  form  of  the  Goddess  Athena  was 
witnessed  helping  her  people  with  divine  power 
in  the  heat  of  the  battle . 

Still  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  distinction 
between  the  Orders  now  called  Doric  and  Ionic 
was  knowQ  at  Athens  during  this  period.  In 
fact  the  conjecture  has  been  made  that  the 
Parthenon  had  Ionic  columns  in  its  upper 
gallery.  But  we  need  not  resort  to  conjecture 
in  the  present  instance.  On  the  Acropolis  are 
still  to  be  found  Ionic  architectural  monuments 
in  abundance. 

(II.)  The  Ionic  Order. — This  order,  taken 
by  itself,  finds  a  representative  in  a  single  small 
Temple  called  N'ike  Apteros  (Wingless  Victory), 
a  form  or  epithet  of  Athena.  It  is  supposed  to 
have  been  built  in  honor  of  Cimon's  victory  over 
the  Persians  at  the  Eurymedon  (469  B.  C.  ).  If 
this  conjecture  is  correct,  it  is  contemporary 
with  the  Theseion.  Thus  a  Doric  and  an  Ionic 
Temple  spring  up  together  at  Athens,  originat- 
ing from  the  same  person  (Cimon).  Probably 
the  Ionic  Order  was  chosen  on  account   of  the 


THE  HELLEmO  CITY.  263 

victory  having  been  won  in  Asia  Minor,  its  birth- 
place, with  the  sympathy  and  help  of  the 
lonians.  It  should  be  stated  that  this  Temple 
is  not  peristylar,  but  is  an  amphiprpstylos  (four 
columns  in  front  and  four  in  the  rear ) .  Its  forms 
show  the  finest  Athenian  workmanahip,  and  its 
sculptured  ornaments  are  particularly  excellent. 

In  this  connection  another  Ionic  Temple  may 
be  mentioned  which  is  usually  supposed  to  have 
been  cotemporary  with  the  preceding  one.  It  is 
only  known  through  the  drawings  of  Stuart  and 
Eevett,  since  whose  time  (they  went  to  Athens 
in  1751  and  remained  there  nearly  three  years) 
it  has  totally  disappeared,  having  been  torn  down 
by  a  Turkish  official. 

(III.)  The  Commingled  Orders.  —  Under 
this  caption  we  place  two  structures  still  found  on 
the  Acropolis.  Of  these  the  Erechtheion  so-called 
is  one  of  the  most  peculiar'specimens  of  Greek 
Architecture.  It  is  in  form  triune,  a  combina- 
tion of  three  Temples  in  one,  each  having  its 
own  Order.  Apparently  it  was  dedicated  to 
three  different  divinities  or  heroes,  but  who  they 
were  it  is  difficult  to  say.  Athena  Polias,  the 
old  Athena  of  the  City,  had  here  her  personal 
sanctuary.  Thus  two  separate  Temples  were 
erected  on  the  Acropolis  by  Athens  to  two  dif- 
ferent Athenas,  or  at  least  to  two  different  con- 
ceptions of  its  divine  Protectress.  The  Par- 
thenon, distant  a  few  feet,  seems  to  have  been 


264  ABQHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

dedicated  to  the  new  Athena  by  the  new  Athens 
under  Pericles,  and  stood  for  that  marvelous 
spiritual  development  which  took  place  in  this 
city  after  the  Persian  War.  But  the  new  order 
of  things  was  resisted  by  the  old  set,  the  con- 
servatives, who  looked  back  longingly  to  the 
good  old  times  and  cursed  the  innovations  of  the 
present  with  a  bitterness  and  mockery  of  which 
we  may  catch  a  strong  reflection  in  the  comedies 
of  Aristophanes.  It  is  a  significant  fact  which 
recent  excavations  have  brought  to  light,  that 
the  old  Parthenon  (the  so-called  Hecatompedon) 
occupied,  in  part  at  least,  the  present  site  of  the 
Erechtheion,  evidently  embracing  those  ancient 
sacred  objects  soon  to  be  mentioned.  But  the 
new  Parthenon  was  entirely  separated  from  the 
venerable  spot,  and  given  a  wholly  distinct 
foundation,  while  another  Temple  (also  new,  by 
the  way)  was  to  be  built  for  the  old  Athena, 
dear  to  the  hearts  of  the  antediluvians.  Yet 
this  new  Temple  of  the  old  Goddess  was  very 
slow  in  getting  finished  ;  not  till  long  after  the 
completion  of  the  Partlienon  could  it  be  dedi- 
cated. 

The  Erechtheion  probably  occupies  the  holiest 
ground  in  all  Attica.  Here  was  the  very  sf)ot 
on  which  took  place  that  primeval  contest  be- 
tween the  Gods,  Poseidon  and  Athena,  for  the 
possession  of  the  country.  In  the  enclosure  of 
this  temple  was  the  salt  spring  which  Poseidon 


THE  HELLENIC  CITY.  265 

caused  to  spout  forth  from  the  earth  at  a  blow  of 
his  trident,  whose  imprint  could  ever  afterwards 
be  seen  on  the  rock.  Here  also  stood  the  sacred 
olive  tree  which  Athena  created  at  a  touch  during 
that  same  contest,  and  which,  after  being  burned 
by  the  Persians,  shot  up  an  ell  long  in  a  cou{)le 
of  days.  The  deities  of  navigation  and  agri- 
culture, the  sea  and  the  land,  contend  for 
Athens,  but  really  she  takes  both,  and  here  puts 
them  together  into  one  temple.  It  is  said  that 
the  shrines  of  Erechtheus  and  Pandrosus  were 
also  located  in  the  structure  —  out  of  which 
myth  not  much  can  be  made.  But  let  us  not  fail 
to  note  that  the  ancient  wooden  image  (xoanon) 
of  Athena  which  fell  from  Heaven,  was  likewise 
kept  in  this  sanctuary,  .and  was  evidently  re- 
garded as  far  holier  by  the  old-timers  than  yon- 
der chryselephantine  statue  of  the  same  Goddess 
by  Phidias,  set  up  in  the  Parthenon. 

As  regards  the  Architecture  of  the  Erech- 
theion,  the  three  temples  are,  as  it  were,  inter- 
grown  in  the  rear,  while  each  has  its  own  col- 
onnade in  front,  there  being  -no  Peristyle  for  any 
one  of  them  or  for  all  of  them  together.  Two 
of  these  fronts  or  rather  porticos  have  Ionic  col- 
umns, so  that  it  would  be  an  exclusively  Ionic 
temple,  were  it  not  for  the  third  portico  with  its 
human  figures,  the  up-bearing  female  statues 
called  Caryatids,  who  have  to  support  on  their 
heads  the  heavv  Ponic  Entablature.     Such  a  de- 


266  ABGHITECTVBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

vice  is  contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Greek  Architec- 
ture, which  has  employed  elsewhere  the  same  prin- 
ciple a  few  times,  though  not  often.  But  Athens 
never  repeated,  as  far  as  is  known,  this  mistake 
of  substituting  the  human  form  for  a  column. 
It  *"  was  committed  probably  through  her  ex- 
cess of  hostility  to  the  Persian,  for  tra- 
dition has  connected  these  Caryatids  with 
the  women  of  Caryse  (a  town  of  Arcadia) 
who  favored  the  cause  of  Persia  against  Greece 
in  the  great  national  conflict.  Here  is  their 
punishment  for  all  time,  they  are  compelled  to 
undergo  a  labor  greater  than  Sisyphus,  since  he 
at  least  gets  some  respite  from  his  toil.  The 
Order  of  the  Caryatids  has  been  named  the 
Persian  Order,  and  it  certainly  is  more  Oriental 
than  Greek.  Still  it  has  been  much  admired; 
particularly  women  "  love  the  Caryatids,"  and 
a  female  architect  has  been  known  to  select  them 
for  a  public  building,  apparently  as  representa- 
tive of  her  sex. 

It  is  significant  that  the  Erechtheion,  though 
the  oldest  and  most  revered  sanctuary  at  Athens, 
was  not  finished  in  its  present  shape  till  about 
407  B.  C,  long  after  Pericles  and  near  the  close 
of  the  Peloponnesian  War.  But  the  fact  is  said 
to  be  derived  from  the  inscriptions  found  on  the 
spot. 

The  PropylcBa  is  the  architectural  Entrance  to 
the  top  of  the  Acropolis,  and  is  generally  con- 


THE  HELLENIC  CITY.  267 

sidered  the  finest  work  of  its  kind  in  the  world. 
The  Entrance  has  been  a  most  important  element 
of  construction  from  the  Egyptian  temple  (see 
Karnak)  down  to  the  present.  The  Propylsea 
was  begun  in  437-6  B.  C,  the  year  after  the 
completion  of  the  Parthenon,  and  was  finished 
in  ^\Q  years,  as  far  as  it  was  ever  finished.  It 
belongs  to  the  Periclean  age,  the  architect  being 
Mnesicles.  It  is  quite  irregular,  though  it  shows 
substantially  a  triple  shape  in  its  ground-plan, 
having  two  wings  and  a  central  structure,  through 
which  passes  the  road  up  to  the  Acropolis.  The 
fronts  of  the  wings  had  their  colonnades  inside 
at  right  angles  to  the  colonnaded  front  of  the 
central  structure;  thus  the  whole  structure 
formed  in  its  ground-plan  a  striking  contrast 
with  yet  similarity  to  the  Erechtheion,  which 
was  essentially  the  Propylasa  turned  inside  out, 
though  both  were  three  temples  in  one  (see  plans 
of  these  buildings  in  the  books  on  Architecture). 
Both  Doric  and  Ionic  columns  are  used  in  the 
Propylaea,  with  a  nice  adjustment  which  suggests 
a  careful  reflection  upon  the  nature  of  the  two 
Orders.  The  main  front  has  a  Doric  colonnade 
with  corresponding  Entablature ;  but  the  consid- 
erably higher  colonnades  —  one  being  on  each 
side  of  the  road  within — are  Ionic.  To  the 
outer  world  the  Propylsea  seemed  Doric;  but 
when  the  spectator  entered  through  the  passage, 
he  saw  himself  flanked  on  both  sides  by  a  row  of 


268  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EVBOPEAN, 

Ionic  columns.  This  inner  change  is  striking, 
and  probably  called  up  to  every  Anthenian  look- 
ing at  it  the  inevitable  struggle  at  hand.  The 
Peloponnesian  War,  the  great  conflict  between 
the  Doric  and  Ionic  branches  of  the  Greek  race, 
was  on  the  point  of  breaking  out  when  the 
Propylsea  was  erected,  in  fact  some  writers  say 
that  it  was  interrupted  by  that  War.  At  any  rate 
everybody  thereafter  who  ascended  the  Acropolis, 
had  to  pass  through  a  line  of  lofty  Ionic  columns 
on  either  hand. 

Thus  the  Acropolis  shows  the  rent  of  Hellas 
into  Doric  and  Ionic  dividing  also  Greek  Archi- 
tecture with  all  its  perfection.  The  Greek  dual- 
ism is  seen  running  through  these  buildings, 
separating  them  into  two  groups  and  even  show- 
ing the  division  in  the  same  building.  The 
transfiguration  of  Greek  Architecture  takes  place 
for  all  time  on  this  Acropolis  hill,  yet  in  the 
very  act  of  it  is  revealed  the  deep-seated  Hellenic 
trouble,  the  malady  of  which  Hellas  is  to  die. 
•  The  Corinthian  Order,  the  attempted  reconcil- 
iation of  the  two  conflicting  principles,  has  not 
been  found  on  the  Acropolis,  and  probably  would 
not  have  been  tolerated  there  in  any  prominent 
place  at  this  early  period.  Still  it  was  then  in 
existence,  and  must  have  been  known  at  Athens. 
Ictinus,  the  architect  of  the  Parthenon,  em- 
ployed it  at  Bassse  where  are  found  also  Doric 
and  Ionic  forms.     Thus  to  him  at  least  the  three 


THE  HELLENIC  CITY.  269 

Orders  in  combination  were  familiar.  Somewhat 
later  they  were  put  together  by  Scopas  in  the 
temple  of  Athena  Alea  at  Tegea.  By  these 
examples  it  would  appear  that  the  conjunction 
of  the  three  Orders  was  first  favored  in  the 
Peloponnesus.  But  at  Athens  the  Corinthian 
Order  seems  to  have  been  first  used  in  the  chor- 
agic  monument  of  Lysicrates,  erected  almost  a 
hundred  years  after  the  temple  at  Bassse. 

The  Propylsea  we  must  consider  to  have  been 
a  religious  edifice  in  the  eyes  of  the  Athenians, 
since  it  was  the  grand  entrance  to  the  Acropolis 
on  which  stood  only  temples  of  the  Gods,  and 
since  it  was  itself  a  cluster  of  temples  in  its  three- 
fold shape.  Still  it  connected  with  the  outer 
world  and  thus  had  its  secular  side.  In  fact,  it 
has  been  sometimes  regarded  as  a  secular  build- 
ing, which  view  we  believe  to  be  a  mistake.  It 
calls  up,  however,  the  secular  Architecture  of 
Athens,  which  must  have  been  limited  at  this 
early  period.  But  the  movement  is  toward 
secularization,  and  this  must  have  at  least  begun 
in  the  time  of  Pericles.  Later  the  secular  spirit 
will  dominate  Classic  Architecture,  particularly 
at  Rome. 

Of  course  there  were  numerous  other  temples 
at  Athens  besides  those  on  the  Acropolis.  In 
the  valley  of  the  Ilissus  are  still  to  be  seen  six- 
teen huge  columns,  of  which  one  is  lying  pros- 
trate, having  been  blown  down  by  a  storm  in 


^10  ABCIUTECTUBE  -  BUBOPEAlSt. 

1852.  They  belong  to  the  Temple  of  Zeus 
(Oljmpieion)  which  was  begun  by  the  tyrant 
Peisistratus  (about  530  B.  C),  but  which  was 
interrupted  by  his  expulsion  from  Athens.  After- 
wards the  Athenians  would  have  nothing  to  do 
with  this  work  of  the  tyrant  whom  they  hated, 
and  seemingly  they  did  not  care  much  for  his 
God,  the  tyrant  of  Olympus.  Aristotle  doubt- 
less reflects  the  common  opinion  when  he  calls 
it  a  work  of  despotic  power.  Democratic  Athens 
let  it  stand  unfinished  and  built  the  Parthenon 
overlooking  it  from  the  Acropolis.  Not  till 
more  than  six  hundred  years  had  passed,  was  it 
finished  by  a  human  world-ruler,  the  Roman 
Emperor  Hadrian,  in  honor  of  his  divine  counter- 
part, the  Olympian  world-ruler. 

The  old  God  of  the  Greeks  is  thus  put  into  the 
background,  if  not  wholly  set  aside  in  this  new 
Periclean  world.  But  we  may  notice  another 
similar  advance  in  divinity.  The  Delphic  Apollo 
had  played  a  rather  ambiguous  part  in  the  Per- 
sian War.  A  deputation  of  Athenians,  consult- 
ing him  about  the  impending  struggle,  could  only 
wring  out  of  him  the  uncertain  advice  that  they 
should  stick  to  their  wooden  walls.  What  does 
this  mean?  At  Athens  there  were  two  leading 
interpretations,  one  of  which  was  that  the  Ora- 
cle intended  the  wooden  walls  of  the  old  Acrop- 
olis. But  Themistocles  said  that  by  the  wooden 
walls    the    Oracle    meant   that    the    Athenians 


TBt:  BELLEmc  cm.  27i 

should  trust  to  their  ships.  They  followed 
his  interpretation,  they  went  down  with  him  in- 
to their  new  wooden  walls ;  the  result  was  the 
battle  of  Salamis  and  the  defeat  of  the  Per- 
sian. Is  it  not  plain  that  the  interpretation 
of  the  Oracle  has  become  more  important  than 
the  Oracle  itself  ?  Rational  intelligence  is  hence- 
forth to  rule  at  Athens,  rather  than  oracular 
wisdom;  Athena  has  transcended  Apollo,  and 
becomes  the  Goddess  of  the  new  order,  even  if 
she  keeps  up  her  old  connections.  But  the  archi- 
tectural fact  of  this  profound  spiritual  transi- 
tion is  the  Parthenon,  Athena's  home,  towering 
over  all  other  temples  in  the  city. 

In  the  age  of  Pericles,  democratic  Athens 
attained  the  culmination  of  the  Greek  City-State, 
and  imparted  her  peculiar  perfection  to  all  that 
she  did.  Democracy  was  the  institution  which 
brought  out  and  trained  the  individual  to  his 
highest  power.  It  gave  him  freedom,  yet  also 
kept  him  obedient  to  law.  As  in  his  Architec- 
ture, so  in  his  Institution,  the  modulus  was  pres- 
ent and  controlling  him,  yet  it  was  also  his  own. 
Now,  through  this  completed  Athenian  Institution , 
the  City-State,  everything  Greek  had  to  pass 
in  order  to  receive  its  final  perfect  touch,  its 
transfiguration.  Hence  comes  that  centripetal 
movement  from  the  periphery  of  all  Hellas  toward 
the  Athenian  center  of  perfection,  as  already  often 
noted. 


271  ABQHITECTURE  —  EUROPEAN. 

There  is  no  doubt  that  the  rest  of  Greece 
visited'  and  admired  these  marvelous  works, 
which  indeed  formed  an  architectural  totality. 
Athens  as  city  becomes  the  realized  ideal,  or  type 
for  all  Greek  cities,  and  inspires  imitation,  re- 
production, and  also  no  small  amount  of  envy. 
But  the  total  Athens  now  works  creatively,  and 
produces  cities,  not  merely  single  temples. 
Throughout  Hellas  runs  the  word  that  the  Greek 
archetypal  Idea  can  be  found  in  an  actual  visible 
example,  and  great  is  the  impulse  to  see  and  to  re- 
create, if  not  to  create.  New  cities  (like  Megalop- 
olis) are  built  after  the  ideal  Hellenic  pattern ; 
other  cities  (like  Syracuse)  seek  to  transform 
themselves  after  the  same  pattern.  Herewith 
begins  a  new  transition ;  a  centrif uo^al  movement 
out  of  Athens  starts  forth  in  striking  contrast 
with  the  previous  centripetal  tendency.  The 
Athenian  University  commences  its  career,  and 
has  something  more  than  a  curriculum  of  learned 
studies.  The  whole  city  is  a  work  of  Art,  not 
merely  filled  with  works  of  Art.  Specially 
Architecture  is  seeking  to  build  an  entire  metrop- 
olis into  the  home  of  associated  Man,  not  sim- 
ply a  temple  or  a  group  of  temples.  Such  an 
aspiration  we  can  now  see  at  Athens,  presaging 
future  fulfillment  in  distant  ages. 

Still  we  have  to  remember  that  this  perfection 
is  Athenian,  not  absolute,  and  in  it  lurks  the 
national   limitation   which  is  the  birth-mark  of 


THE  BELLENIC  CITY,  273 

mortality.  Beautiful  Athens  is  tragic ;  so  speak 
her  great  dramatists,  describing  her  destiny  in 
the  outlines  of  their  heroic  characters ;  so  speak 
also  to-day  the  ruins  of  the  Acropolis. 

But  the  transfiguration  is  accomplished,  the 
movement  outward  has  begun  again,  not  now 
merely  to  the  colonial  rim  of  Hellas  but  to  the 
bounds  of  the  whole  civilized  world  both  in  Space 
and  in  Time.  We  shall  behold  it  spatially  reach- 
ing out  to  the  limits  of  the  Eoman  Empire  and 
temporally  extending  down  to  the  present  age 
with  no  sign  of  cessation  for  the  future.  It  is  at 
this  point  of  transition,  however,  that  the  purely 
Hellenic  Period  comes  to  its  conclusion,  and 
another  Period  sets  in,  quite  opposite  indirection 
and  character. 

18 


274  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN, 


II.  The  Hellenistic  Period. 

We  have  now  reached  the  time  wheu  it  be- 
comes the  supreme  function  of  the  Greek  nation 
to  make  its  culture  universal,  to  impart  its  spirit- 
ual acquisitions  to  peoples  who  do  not  possess 
them.  The  political  duty  of  the  Hellenic  City- 
State  is  done,  another  task  lies  before  Greece, 
which  is  henceforth  for  several  centuries  to  re- 
veal itself  as  the  intellectual  center  of  the  world, 
as  the  University  of  Civilization.  Other  States 
like  Macedon  and  Rome,  will  do  the  governing, 
while  all  Hellas  turns  pedagogue  to  mankind,  a 
position  which  she  has  by  no  means  renounced 
at  the  present  day. 

Now  Greek  Architecture  is  one  of  the  disci- 
plines which  the  Hellenic  nation  has  developed  and 
which  is  to  become  a  very  important  branch  in 
this  Greek  University  of  Civilization.  Archi- 
tects from  Hellas  will  follow  in  the  track  of 
Alexander  to  the  East,  and  will  soon  start  to 
building  under  his  command.  They  will  likewise 
penetrate  to  Eome  in  the  West,  and  will  help 
transform  the  imperial  City  into  a  great  architec- 
tural totality.  The  institutional  abodes  of  the 
whole  civilized  world,  religious  and  secular,  pub- 
lic and  private,  will  shoot  into  the  marble  forms 
of  Greek  Architecture  as  if  by  a  process  of  uni- 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  275 

versal  crystallization.  From  the  Atlantic  to  the 
Ganges  will  these  architectonic  pulsations  of  little 
Greece  be  felt,  and  from  the  forests  of  Germany 
in  the  North  to  the  deserts  ©f  Africa  in  the  South. 
Almost  everywhere  in  the  landscape  of  the  Medi- 
terranean the  traveler  comes  upon  ruins  of  this 
vast  architectural  world,  which  still  speak  of  their 
antique  home  in  Hellas. 

It  is  evident  that  Greek  Architecture  had  a 
period  of  expansion  .following  its  period  of  cen- 
tralization just  recorded.  It  overflowed  its  nar- 
row Hellenic  boundaries  and  spread  out  through 
all  civilized  nations,  fertilizing  and  enriching  with 
its  beautiful  forms  the  souls  of  even  barbarous 
peoples.  Succeeding  the  centripetal  movement 
from  the  outlying  rim  of  colonies  rises  a  mightier 
centrifugal  movement,  which  surges  beyond  the 
outermost  Greek  borderland  and  reaches  the 
farthest  zones  of  ancient  civilization.  This  is 
the  great  external  manifestation  in  space  of  what 
we  here  .call  the  Hellenistic  Period  in  distinction 
from  the  pure  Greek  or  Hellenic  Period,  which 
was  an  ingathering  and  preparation  of  the  spirit- 
ual forces  of  the  Greek  race.  Already  we  have 
noted  the  start  of  this  outgoing  movement  from 
its  Athenian  center,  and  its  spread  through  the 
rest  of  Greece.  But  its  sweep  does  not  now  stop 
at  the  periphery  of  Hellenism,  but  it  breaks  over 
or  rather  breaks  down  the  national  walls  and  be- 
comes what  we  call  Hellenisticism,  the  union  and 


276  ARCHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

mutual  transformation  of  the  nations  through 
Greek  culture,  in  the  present  case  through 
Greek  Architecture. 

Thus  the  non-Hellenic  world  Hellenizes,  ap- 
propriates Hellenism.  Previously  that  world, 
even  if  civilized  in  its  way,  was  deemed  bar- 
barous by  the  Greek,  who  is  now  to  transcend 
his  hide-bound  nativism.  For  the  influence  was 
not  wholly  on  one  side.  In  passing  through  the 
non-Hellenic  or  ethnic  mind  pure  Hellenic  civil- 
ization takes  a  new  tinge,  is  doubtless  widened 
and  in  a  certain  manner  perverted,  or,  as  is 
often  said,  barbarized.  At  the  same  time  it 
fulfills  its  great  historical  function  of  becoming 
universal;  the  excellence  developed  by  one 
people  is  imparted  to  all.  Centuries  will  elapse 
during  this  grand  metamorphosis  of  national 
spirits ;  the  world  is  to  be  made  Classic,  Hellenic, 
till  the  blow  falls  which  shivers  this  fair  fabric, 
and  a  totally  new  Era  sets  in. 

I,  Whithersoever  the  Greek  carried  his  Archi- 
tecture, he  found  buildings  already  existing  and 
constructed  after  some  principle  upon  which  he 
impinged.  We  have  previously  spoken  of  Pe- 
lasgic  structures,  which  form  a  kind  of  under- 
lying architectural  protoplasm,  out  of  which  the 
edifices  of  the  classic  world  seem  to  spring.  The 
Greek  architect,  issuing  forth  from  the  bounds 
of  Hellas,  finds  everywhere  this  primordial,  pro- 
toplasmic construction.     When    he  reaches  the 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PEBIOD.  277 

valley  of  the  Euphrates  or  of  the  Nile  he  comes 
upon  old,  fully  developed  Architectures,  with 
which  he  has  to  reckon.  The  result  is  that  the 
Hellenistic  process  begins  at  once,  showing  a 
coalesceuce  of  ethnic  and  Hellenic  constructive 
forms.  The  case  of  Deinocrates,  a  Greek  archi- 
tect, who  accompanied  Alexander  to  the  Orient, 
furnishes  an  example.  The  Macedonian  monarch 
commanded  a  colossal  funeral  pile  to  be  built  at 
Babylon  to  his  deceased  favorite,  Hephaestion. 
The  foundation  of  brick  was  a  stade  square,  and 
the  whole  was  in  the  form  of  a  pyramid  with 
flights  of  ascending  steps,  six  stories  high.  The 
lower  story  was  decorated  with  240  golden  prows 
of  ships,  with  colossal  statues  of  kneeling  archers 
and  standing  soldiers,  and  contained  30  lavishly 
finished  rooms  inside.  And  so  onto  the  top,  with 
manifold  Greek  and  Oriental  forms  combined. 
We  may  note  the  fourth  story  which  had  a 
famous  Greek  theme,  the  battle  of  Centaurs, 
wrought  of  gold;  while  the  fifth  story  was  devo- 
ted to  an  Assyrio-Babylonian  display  of  art,  the 
ever-recurring  shapes  of  bulls  and  lions,  also  of 
gold.  Nor  should  we  fail  to  mention  the  highest 
story,  where  the  arms  of  the  conquering  Greeks 
and  the  defeated  Orientals  were  piled  up  together, 
apparently  a  symbol  of  peace  and  union.  The 
whole  was  crowned  by  statues  of  Sirens,  which 
were  hollow  and  contained  the  singers  who  were 
to  chant  the  dirge  to  the  dead.     It  was  130  ells 


278  ABCHITECTUBE^  EUROPEAN. 

high,  and  cost  12,000  talents  (Diodorus  Siculus 
XYII,  115). 

Here  is,  indeed,  a  striking  example  of  Hellas 
becoming  Oriental,  and  also  of  the  Orient  becom- 
ing Hellenic.  A  subtle  interpenetration  of  each 
in  the  other  is  observable,  a  reciprocal  transfor- 
mation of  one  into  the  other,  whereby  both  are 
passing  into  something  beyond  both.  This 
is  the  Hellenistic  process  as  manifested  in  the 
Orient,  which  also  interweaves  its  peculiar  dark 
symbolic  vein  into  the  clear  simple  art  of  Greece, 
as  we  may  feel  in  the  foregoing  instance.  A 
wild  fantastic  caprice  begins  to  sport  with  the 
plastic  Greek  shapes;  a  bound-bursting  spirit 
breaks  over  the  moderation  and  measured 
harmony  of  Hellenic  spirit;  the  careful,  definite 
proportion  of  the  Greek  temple  starts  forth  into 
colossality  and  immensity,  carrying  along,  how- 
ever, column  and  entablature.  The  tomb  has 
become  the  supreme  architectural  monument  — 
a  distinctly  non-Greek  feeling;  an  Oriental 
other-worldliness  striving  beyond  and  beyond  in 
pyramidal  fashion  is  taking  up  the  serene  Greek 
this-worldliness  with  its  happy  statues  and 
laughing  colonnades,  and  is  bearing  it  skyward 
toward  a  new  future. 

In  the  Orient  Alexander  and  his  successors 
practiced  city-building  on  the  same  magnificent 
scale,  of  which  the  chief  instance  was  Alexandria 
in  the  delta  of  the  Nile  between   Lake   Mareotis 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD,  279 

and  the  Sea.  Egypt  built  in  her  time  many  great 
cities,  but,  strictly  speaking,  not  one  of  them  is 
now  standing.  But  the  site  of  Alexandria  was 
chosen  with  such  skill  by  Alexander  himself, 
and  laid  out  with  such  foresight  and  large-minded 
liberality  that  it  remains  the  leading  city  of 
Egypt  to  this  day,  imperishable,  though  often 
outwardly  destroyed  in  the  warsjand  devastations 
of  the  ages.  It  is  a  sea-city,  and  through  it  that 
mysterious  introverted,  secretive  Egyptian  soul 
flows  out  into  the  world  and  is  made  to  impart 
its  spiritual  and  material  treasures  to  all  man- 
kind by  means  of  Greek  genius.  Alexandria  be- 
came the  great  Hellenistic  center  of  the  Orient, 
in  which  were  gathered  the  arts,  the  commerce, 
the  learning  and  particularly  the  religions  of  the 
East,  and  through  which  they  became  all  more 
or  less  Hellenized. 

II.  Greek  Architecture  also  traveled  to  the 
West,  though  more  slowly,  since  it  was  not  borne 
thither  by  the  mighty  and  rapid  arm  of  political 
conquest,  as  was  the  case  in  the  East.  Still  it 
crossed  over  the  border  and  gradually  made  its 
way  to  the  Italic  peoples  in  its  centrifugal  career. 
These  peoples  retained  their  national  charac- 
ter in  essence,  though  appropriating  Greek 
culture.  The  indestructible  germ  of  the  tribe 
and  of  the  nation  remained;  they  did  not  be- 
come Greek,  they  did  not  lose  their  ethnic 
peculiarity.     In  fact,  the  Greek  in  Italy  began 


280  ABG HIT  EC  TUBE  — EUROPEAN. 

to  brush  against  a  mightier  national  individuality 
than  his  own  during  these  later  Hellenistic  cen- 
turies —  Rome. 

It  is  Rome,  the  universal  City-State  of  an- 
tiquity, which  will  finally  absorb  all  these  single 
Greek  City-States,  along  with  their  art  and 
science  and  philosophy.  Again  we  shall  witness 
a  centripetal  movement  of  civilization,  not, 
however,  toward  the  Athenian  but  toward  the 
Italic  metropolis,  when  it  has  become  the  world's 
capital.  Architecture  also  will  share  in  this 
centralizing  tendency,  and  will  gather  all  its 
scattered  forms,  Greek,  Oriental,  Barbarian, 
into  one  vast  architectonic  Whole,  such  as  was 
never  before  seen  or  since. 

When  such  a  centripetal  current  sets  in  toward 
Rome  from  the  periphery  not  merely  of  Greece 
but  of  the  whole  civilized  world,  it  is  evident 
that  the  centrifugal  movement  of  the  Hellenistic 
Period  must  come  to  an  end.  And  that  is  what 
we  are  now  to  see.  Rome,  having  transformed 
herself  from  her  ethnic  into  her  imperial  char- 
acter, produces  a  similar  transformation  of  all 
ethnic  Architecture,  which  is  there  whirled  into 
the  Roman  cauldron,  and  after  a  time  comes 
forth  imperialized^  all  its  separate  members  being 
united  in  one  grand  imperial  totality.  We  find 
this  change  working  decisively  under  Augustus 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Empire.  Reckoning 
from  his  time  back  to  that  of  Alexander,  we  may 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  281 

consider  that  the  Hellenistic  Period  lasted  some- 
what more  than  300  years. 

III.  We  must  next  seek  to  find  out  the  chief 
means,  the  main  constructive  principle  which  is 
employed  to  coalesce  with  Greek  Architecture 
in  order  to  transmute  it  into  its  Hellenistic 
character.  The  answer  is  simple:  the  Arch. 
Everywhere  Greek  construction  which  is  essen- 
tially rectilineal,  as  it  moves  beyond  the  rim  of 
Hellas,  runs  upon  the  Arch,  which  is  essentially 
curvilineal.  The  two  principles,  Greek  and 
Barbarian  l5t  them  be  named  for  the  nonce, 
grapple,  fight  and  finally  come  together.  In 
both  the  Aryan  and  the  Semitic  Orient  the  Arch 
was  found,  as  well  as  among  the  Italic  nations  of 
the  West.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  the  Arch 
seems  to  be  an  original  possession  of  all  peoples 
who  have  reached  a  certain  stage  of  primitive 
civilization.  W"e  have  already  noted  that  the 
Arch  in  both  of  its  constructive  forms,  called 
the  true  and  the  false,  was  known  to  the 
Pelasgians,  that  underlying  old- Aryan  layer  of 
so  many  European  nationalities.  The  Arch, 
then,  lurked  already  in  this  original  folk-proto- 
plasm, existent  indeed,  but  with  its  chief  capaci- 
ties not  yet  unfolded  into  their  bloom,  waiting 
for  some  nation  to  seize  upon  it  as  their  supreme 
constructive  expression,  and  to  develop  its  latent 
power  into  visible  reality,  which  nation  will  be 
the  Boman,  especially  under  the  Empire. 


282  ARCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

To  the  Greek  architects  of  the  Hellenic  Period 
the  Arch  must  have  been  well  known.  Every- 
where in  the  ancient  towns  of  Greece  could  be 
seen  examples  of  its  employment.  The  Tombs, 
Treasuries,  and  doubtless  many  Temples  were 
vaulted  in  the  old  ages,  and  they  still  existed  for 
inspection.  Now  this  vaulting,  constructed  by 
means  of  horizonal  layers  of  stone  gradually  pro- 
jecting and  coming  together  from  different  direc- 
tions till  the  whole  is  overarched,  rests  upon  the 
formal  principle  of  the  voussoir,  which  is  the 
Wedge-shaped  stone  of  the  regular  tipright  arch. 
This  pressure  is  indeed  lateral  chiefly,  not  down- 
ward, but  the  principle  in  form  is  essentially  the 
same.  Moreover  there  are  instances  of  the 
regular  Arch  which  must  be  referred  to  ancient 
Hellas.  We  have,  accordingly,  the  right  to  in- 
fer the  Greek  architects  of  the  rectangular  Tem- 
ple saw  the  Arch  around  them  on  their  own  soil. 
Moreover,  if  they  visited  the  cities  in  the  valley 
of  the  Euphrates,  as  they  could  easily  have  done 
during  the  Persian  supremacy,  they  would  have 
seen  the  Arch  applied  very  generally  to  brick 
structures.  It  is  known  that  Egypt  was  open  to 
Greece  from  the  reign  of  Psammetichus,  and  in 
Egypt  also  the  Arch  was  used  and  could  be 
observed  by  the  traveling  Greek  architect,  who 
would  not  fail  to  study  the  monumental  forms  of 
the. Valley  of  the  Nile. 

We  are  careful  to  bring  toorether  these  facts 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PEBIOD.  283 

in  order  to  show  that  the  Greek  architect  of  the 
national  Period  rejected  the  Arch  'knowingly^ 
with  a  full  consciousness  of  its  character.  In 
reaching  down  to  the  Psychology  of  the  archi- 
tectural movement  of  the  ages  —  and  this  we 
must  do,  if  we  would  get  to  the  bottom  of  it  — 
we  must  next  ask,  What  made  the  Greek  turn 
away  from  the  Arch?  Why  is  it  un-Greek  in 
the  opinion  of  the  Greek?  In  a  general  way  we 
can  affirm  that  it  did  not  express  his  national 
spirit,  it  did  not  mirror  his  associated  life,  so 
that  he  would  not  build  it  into  his  institutional 
Home.  He  disliked  it,  shuddered  at  it,  deemed 
it  barbarous,  or  an  antiquated  Pelasgic  or  Ori- 
ental form,  which  he  had  long  since  transcended. 
We  can  well  conceive  that  the  sight  of  an  Arch 
smote  upon  the  Greek  soul  with  a  discord  which 
became  actually  painful.  He  felt  it  to  be  his 
enemy,  to  be  antagonistic  to  the  innermost  spirit 
of  Hellas,  to  all  that  Hellas  meant  in  herself  and 
for  the  future. 

I-f  we  look  into  the  source  of  this  profound 
opposition,  we  find  that  it  lies  primordially  in  the 
structural  principles  themselves.  The  Greek 
principle,  the  column  and  tie-beam,  had  to  be 
broken  to  pieces  and  trimmed  into  those  wedge- 
shaped  voussoirs,  in  order  to  build  the  Arch. 
Then  the  Greek  in  his  Peristyle  had  a  limited 
power  of  enclosure,  which  the  Arch  broke  over, 
thus  revealing  within  itself  an  unlimited  power 


284  AECHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

of  enclosure  —  and  to  this  day  it  is  still  widening 
it«elf  out.  The  Greek  with  his  native  plastic 
sense  demanded  a  well-rounded  totality,  a  limited 
Whole ;  but  the  Arch  suggests  and  reaches  out 
for  the  unlimited  All,  a  tendency  which  makes 
the  Greek  unhappy  and  undermines  his  world. 
No  wonder  that  the  Greek  was  minded  to  cast 
the  Arch  out  of  his  beautiful,  but  limited  Uni- 
verse, regarding  it  as  a  sort  of  architectural 
devil  who  would  shiver  it  to  fragments.  And 
when  the  destroyer  did  appear,  behold,  he  brings 
with  him  just  that  diabolic  Arch. 

IV.  The  Greek  architect  of  the  Hellenistic 
Period,  however,  is  to  rise  above  this  nativistic 
limitation  of  his  Hellenic  stock.  Passing  over 
the  boundary  of  Hellas  spiritually  as  well  spa- 
tially, he  must  begin  to  reconcile  himself  with 
the  Arch,  to  study  its  structural  nature  and  unite 
it  harmoniously  with  his  Greek  inheritance.  In 
fact  we  believe  that  many  a  Greek  architect  of 
the  fourth  century  B.  C.  began  to  feel  the  con- 
finement of  his  little  Hellenic  City-State  and  its 
Architecture.  Alexander  simply  realized  the 
barrier-bursting  spirit  which  had  arisen  in  Hellas, 
and  gave  an  outlet  to  it  eastward.  It  streamed 
forth  and  overflowed  Asia,  combining  with  the 
pre-existent  elements  of  art  and  civilization  in  the 
Orient.  The  bounded  self-returning  peristyle 
will  break  up  into  the  indefinitely  prolonged  col- 
onnade;  the  Arch,  being   placed   alongside  the 


THE  EELLENISTIQ  PEEIOD.  285 

column,  will  take  from  it  its  supporting  power 
and  reduce  it  to  an  ornamental  expression ;  the 
arched  passage,  even  if  it  uses  the  columnar 
row,  will  pay  little  respect  to  intercolumniation, 
and  thus  will  strike  down  the  modulus,  or  meas- 
uring unit  which  lies  at  the  root  of  the  propor- 
tions of  Greek  Architecture.  This  loves  the 
small  or  the  moderate,  which  it  seeks  to  make 
perfect  in  form  and  finish .  Hence  comes  the  fact 
that  Hellenistic  Architecture,  expanding  toward 
the  colossal  and  turning  the  view  beyond  the 
limited,  pays  less  attention  to  detail  and  gradually 
deteriorates  in  quality  of  workmanship. 

It  should  be  observed  that  the  Arch  is  com- 
paratively an  artificial  thing,  the  result  of  ex- 
perience and  a  certain  degree  of  calculation. 
Nature  hardly  shows  us  the  regular  Arch,  even  if 
some  of  her  caves  and  passages  be  rudely  vaulted. 
Her  method  is  to  pile  layer  on  layer  in  horizontal 
or  inclined  courses,  following  the  line  of  gravity; 
her  direction  goes  to  the  earth's  center.  Herein 
the  Greek  obeyed  Nature,  and  the  stone  in  his 
building  takes  its  natural  bent  downward.  He 
sought  to  be  in  harmony  with  his  physical  en- 
vironment; to  cross  Nature  would  produce  in  his 
poetic  soul  a  discord.  Hence  he  stratified  his 
Temple  in  the  same  general  way  that  the  native 
rock  was  stratified  which  he  quarried  out  of 
Pentelicus.  The  old  Pelasgic  Arch,  even,  though 
it  was  constructed  of  horizontal  blocks,  called  up 


286  ABC  HITEG  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

a  discord  within  him,  as  being  inharmonious 
with  Nature,  and  so  he  threw  it  aside. 

But  the  regular  semi-circular  Arch  primarily 
breaks  away  from  this  natural  direction  to  the 
earth's  center,  and  substitutes  a  center  of  its  own 
in  which  the  sides  of  each  voussoir,  if  extended 
like  radii,  would  meet.  From  this  central  point 
the  Arch  is  determined,  rays  out,  so  to  speak, 
into  a  circumference  of  stone.  On  the  other 
hand  each  of  these  stone  wedges  pushes  with  all 
its  own  weight  and  the  weight  put  upon  it  against 
its  neighbor,  which  pushes  back  again  with  equal 
force ;  thus  both  and  all  are  striving  to  reach 
and  occupy  the  same  central  point  of  the  Arch. 
The  result  is  that  they  are  interlocked  and  con- 
solidated through  pressure  into  one  common 
monolithic  mass,  which  nevertheless  leaves  the 
space  beneath  itself  open  for  a  passage.  It  is 
true  that  the  Arch  as  a  whole  still  tends  to  the 
earth's  center  by  virtue  of  gravity;  but  the 
earth's  center  has  become  secondary  while  that 
of  the  Arch  is  primary.  So  it  comes  that  the 
Arch  may  be  said  to  have  two  centers,  the  nat- 
ural and  the  constructive.  But  the  column  and 
tie-beam  with  their  horizontal  layers  show  no 
such  inner  separation,  since  nature  and  cpnstruc- 
tion  are  one  and  work  together  in  harmony. 

The  Hellenistic  Arch  was  the  stepping-stone 
to  Oriental  and  Roman  colossality  which  to  the 
Greek  of  the  Hellenic  Period  was  on  the  whole 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PEBIOD.  287 

inartistic  and  repugnant.  It  is  true  that  he 
made  some  colossal  statues,  notably,  that  one  of 
Athena  on  the  Acropolis.  But  this  was  intended 
to  be  seen  from  afar,  from  the  distant  sea;  it 
was  erected  for  the  Athenian  mariner  who, 
voyaging  homeward,  as  his  ship  wheeled  around 
Sunium  would  first  of  all  catch  the  sheen  of 
the  tip  of  the  spear,  then  of  the  helmet  and 
shield  of  his  protecting  deity.  But  for  the  per- 
son who  went  to  the  Acropolis,  there  was  another 
statue  of  the  same  Goddess,  which  had  mod- 
erate dimensions,  and  which  could  be  seen  inside 
the  Parthenon.  In  this  respect  also  the  Greek 
shunned  the  enormous  shapes  of  Egyptian 
sculpture. 

V.  From  the  foregoing  account  it  is  evident 
that  there  will  be  an  Oriental  Movement  of  the 
Hellenistic  Period,  in  which  Hellenic  Archi- 
tecture sweeps  eastward  beyond  the  Greek  bor- 
der—  which  event  culminates  rapidly  in  the 
time  of  Alexander  and  his  successors,  though  it 
had  been  slowly  taking  place  before.  Then 
there  will  be  an  Occidental  or  specially  an  Italic 
Movement  of  the  Hellenistic  Period  in  which 
Hellenic  Architecture  will  penetrate  westward 
and  start  among  the  Italic  nations.  Finally  with 
the  unity  of  Italy  under  republican  Kome,  there 
will  be  a  corresponding  concentration  of  Archi- 
ture  in  the  world-conquering  city  on  the  Tiber, 


288  AECHITECTUEE  —  EUBOPEAN'. 

wbich  will  bring  to  an  end  the  Hellenistic  Period 
with  its  centrifugal  tendency. 

1.  The  Oriental  Movement.  It  has  been 
already  noted  that  Greek  Architecture  went  to 
the  East  along  with  Alexander.  This  fact  has 
been  embodied  after  the  Greek  fashion  in  a 
striking  story  or  perchance  myth,  which  has 
been  handed  down  by  Vitruvius.  Deinocrates, 
an  architect  filled  with  the  spirit  of  the  time, 
came  before  Alexander  with  a  grand  project. 
This  was  to  cut  Mount  Athos  into  the  figure  of 
a  huge  overtowering  statue,  and  under  it  to 
build  a  city.  Alexander  was  struck  with  the 
plan,  but  on  inquiry  he  found  that  the  place  was 
without  a  good  supply  of  water.  Whereupon  he 
vetoed  that  scheme,  but  bade  Deinocrates  attend 
him  on  his  expedition  since  he  had  work  for  just 
such  a  man.  Thus  he  finds  his  architect  cog- 
nate in  genus  with  himself;  loving  the  colossal 
form  though  a  Greek,  and  seeking  to  make  it 
actual;  also  a  city-builder  in  imagination  on  a 
large  scale,  which,  however,  he  will  realize.  In 
Deinocrates  we  see  that  Greek  Architecture  is 
breaking  over  its  narrow  boundary;  doubtless 
many  architects  of  the  time  showed  the  same 
tendency,  in  fact  all  must  have  felt  the  limit- 
transcending  pulsation  of  the  age.  Hellas  had 
wrought  itself  out  to  the  full  limit  of  its  own 
small  perfection,  and  must  step  forth  into  a 
larger  arena,  imparting  and  receiving.     Hence  it 


THE  BELLEmSTIC  PEBIOD.  289 

rushed  so  impetuously  into  the  outlet  opened  by 
Alexander,  taking  along  its  art,  its  science,  its 
philosophy,  its  All  to  the  East.  In  one  sense 
this  sapped  the  country  of  its  most  aspiring  souls, 
but  on  the  other  hand  it  realized  Greek  spirit, 
making  it  universal. 

So  it  was  in  the  order  of  things  that  an  archi- 
tectural conqueror  should  accompany  the  political 
or  institutional  conqueror  in  order  to  make  a 
fitting  Home  for  the  coming  institutions.  Dein- 
ocrates  erected  cities  in  Asia  for  Alexander,  but 
his  greatest  work  was  the  building  of  Alexandria 
in  Egypt,  as  previously  noted.  He  was  also 
the  architect  of  that  astonishing  structure,  the 
funeral  monument  to  Hephaeston,  which  has 
been  already  described.  An  autocrat  seemingly 
in  his  way  as  much  as  was  Alexander,  he  orien- 
talized Greek  Architecture.  His  character  ap- 
pears to  be  hinted  in  his  name  which  suggests  a 
man  of  "  terrible  power."  It  seems  to  have 
been  chiefly  his  strong  individuality,  which  took 
up  and  realized  the  aspiration  of  his  age,  that  the 
Hellenic  constructive  spirit  becarne  Hellenistic. 

The  Successors  of  Alexander  continued  and 
extended  the  architectural  work  begun  by  Alex- 
ander. We  read  of  cities  springing  up  with  Greek 
names  in  the  valley  of  the  Euphrates,  like  Ctes- 
phon  and  Seleucia,  and  even  in  remote  Bactria. 
In  Syria  Antioch  and  many  others  arose,  attest- 
ing the  new  spirit  which  had  come  into  the  Orient. 

19 


hb 


ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EVBOPEAN. 


Particularly  the  Ptolomies  in  the  valley  of  the 
Nile  were  lovers  of  the  architectoDic  art,  and 
reared  structures,  some  of  whose  ruins  still  exist 
and  reveal  a  peculiar  mutual  influence  and  inter- 
marriage of  Greek  and  Egyptian  forms  somewhat 
after  the  fashion  of  the  Ptolomies  themselves. 

Nearly  all  the  Hellenistic  Architecture  of  the 
Orient  has  perished.  Cities  built  by  the  Suc- 
cessors of  Alexander  seem  to  have  vanished 
without  a  trace.  Some  will  perhaps  yet  be  dug 
up  in  this  age  of  excavation.  But  we  have  echoes 
of  them  in  the  later  cities  built  during  the  im- 
perial Roman  Period,  such  as  Baalbec,  Palmyra, 
Jeresh.  These  show  the  Greek  architectural 
traditions  still  ruling  the  Orient,  even  if  in  a 
debased  form.  Among  these  Hellenistic  cities 
the  chief  one  is  never  to  be  forgotten,  Alexandria, 
which  showed  a  tendency  for  a  time  to  make  itself 
a  center  of  Oriental  Hellenisticism.  But  owing 
to  its  lack  of  political  importance,  it  simply 
remained  one  among  many  such  cities  in  the 
East. 

2.  The  Italic  Movement,  Southern  Italy 
(called  also  Magna  Grecia)  was  settled  by  Greek 
colonies  which  shared  in  the  first  development  of 
Greek  Architecture.  Paestum,  not  far  from 
Naples,  has  still  most  important  remains  of  early 
Greek  temples.  Central  Italy,  inhabited  by  in- 
dependent peoples,  chiefly  the  Etruscan  and 
Latin,  began  to  feel  the  influence  of  Greek  civil- 


TEE  HELLENISTIC  PEBIOD.  291 

ization  at  an  early  date  in  their  history,  though 
the  progress  was  gradual.  There  was  no  Greek 
conqueror  in  the  West  like  Alexander,  to  trans- 
form at  a  blow  arts  and  institutions.  Pyrrhus 
may  have  had  some  such  ambition,  but  he  was 
foiled  by  the  valor  of  the  Eomans,  who  had 
already  a  strength  of  national  character  greater 
than  the  Greek  of  that  age,  not  to  speak  of 
the  Oriental. 

The  Architecture  of  Hellas,  therefore,  does 
not  come  to  Central  Italy  as  a  sudden  conqueror. 
It  meets,  however,  the  same  constructive  prin- 
ciple, the  Arch,  that  common  possession  of 
peoples.  Eastern  aud  Western.  The  result  was 
a  long  architectural  battle  whose  outlines  can  be 
faintly  seen  at  intervals. 

The  Italiots  (by  whom  we  mean  the  ancient 
non-Greek  peoples  of  Italy),  did  not  have  orig- 
inally the  peristylar  temple,  till  they  imported 
it,  doubtless,  from  the  Greek  colonies  of  South- 
ern Italy  and  Sicily.  Still  they  adopted  the 
column  at  quite  an  early  period,  but  placed  it  in 
front  and  formed  there  a  colonnade  having  the 
walled  enclosure  to  the  rear.  Thus  there  is  a 
two-foldness,  an  external  separation  in  these 
Italic  temples,  with  columns  before  and  cella 
behind,  which  stands  in  significant  contrast  to  the 
inner  division  of  the  Greek  temple  with  its 
peristyle  engirdling  the  cella  within  itself.  Still 
there  are   Greek  instances   similar  to  the  men- 


292  ABCmT£!CT[fIiE  — EUROPEAN'. 

tioned  Italic  form,  which  is  known  in  Greek 
Architecture  as  the  prostylar  in  distinction  from 
the  peristylar.  The  temple  of  Wingless  Victory 
on  the  Athenian  Acropolis  is  prostylar.  At 
Ehamnus  not  far  from  Marathon  is  another  form 
frequent  in  Italy,  the  templum  in  antis,  with  two 
Doric  columns  in  front  of  a  walled  cella. 

Both  of  these  forms  of  temples  are  much 
older  than  the  peristyle ;  in  fact  they  lead  up  to 
it  in  a  gradual  evolution,  and  belong  to  an 
ancient  stage  common  to  Greek  and  Italic  stocks. 
It  is  characteristic  that  the  Roman  Architecture, 
much  later  than  the  Hellenic  in  development, 
has  the  tendency  to  retain  the  earlier  construc- 
tive shapes  which  the  Greek  abandoned  so  com- 
pletely that  only  a  few  examples  are  now  to  be 
found  on  the  soil  of  Hellas.  In  like  manner 
the  Latin  tongue  often  preserves  more  purely 
the  old  Aryan  speech  than  the  Greek,  which 
matured  long  before  Latin.  A  certain  con- 
servative, tenacious,  unifying  power  seems  to  lie 
originally  in  the  Italic  stocks. 

(a)  The  mentioned  Italiots  were  split  up  into 
many  tribes  and  indeed  nations.  There  was  an 
old-Aryan  migration  into  the  Italic  peninsula 
which  brought  with  it  certain  simple  structural 
principles ;  these  are  what  we  have  already  called 
Pelasgic.  Throughout  Italy  we  can  trace  that 
early  huge  masonry  of   irregular   and  polyonal 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PEBIOD.  293 

blocks  which  walled  in  the  towns  of  a  primitive, 
pre-historic  people. 

There  must  have  been  numerous  displacements 
of  these  early  tribes  through  war  and  migration. 
Though  the  Celts  seem  to  have  come  into 
Europe  before  the  Italic  stocks,  we  find  a  line 
of  Celtic  towns  in  Northern  Italy  long  after  the 
Italiots  proper  had  entered  the  peninsula  and  had 
settled  in  its  middle  and  southern  portions, 
having  apparently  gone  around  the  Adriatic  and 
passed  through  that  belt  of  hostile  towns.  Then 
there  is  the  standing  mystery  of  the  Etruscans. 

At  present,  however,  the  design  is  simply  to 
call  attention  to  this  original  architectural  pro- 
toplasm of  Italy,  which  is  to  unfold  into  its  own 
peculiar  structures  chiefly  through  the  influence 
of  Greek  Architecture.  But  Italy  was  also  full 
of  communities  which  had  their  own  distinct 
institutional  life.  The  town  and  city  there  de- 
veloped an  individual  Italic  character,  different 
from  the  Hellenic,  even  if  allied  to  it  in  a  num- 
ber of  ways .  From  the  start  there  was  a  cer- 
tain inner  unifying  tendency  in  these  Italic 
communities,  which  after  many  fluctuations  cul- 
minated in  Rome,  the  one  central  city  which  at 
last  united  them  and  all  the  civilized  world. 

Thus  the  civic  institution  in  Italy  as  in  Greece 
was  the  transforming  power  which  brought  forth 
what  may  be  called  Italic  Architecture.  Its 
materials  were  chiefly  two :   the  transmitted  old- 


294  '  ABGHITECTVItE  ~  EUBOPEAN. 

Aryan  construction,  and  the  highly  developed 
structural  forms  of  Hellas,  which  had  likewise 
been  primarily  received  from  a  foreign  civilized 
people,  the  Egyptians,  though  much  changed  in 
the  transition.  The  Italic  temples  of  the  Gods 
will,  therefore,  be  somewhat  different  from  the 
Greek,  since  every  people  must  build  the  home 
of  its  God  who  makes  it  a  people  distinct  and 
peculiar. 

(5)  The  Etruscans  seem  a  foreign  stock 
wedged  into  the  heart  of  Italy.  They  had  at- 
tained a  considerable  degree  of  civilization  con- 
temporaneous with  the  Greek  and  antecedent  to 
the  Eoman  supremacy.  They  are  a  people  who 
have  furnished  more  problems  to  the  antiquarian, 
the  philologist  and  the  historian  than  any  other 
around  the  Mediterranean.  They  show  almost 
an  equal  combination  of  Aryan  and  Semitic 
characteristics ;  they  have  also  something  Egyp- 
tian in  their  nature,  but  are  capable  of  Greek 
culture.  They  seem  in  many  regards  a  contra- 
dictory dualistic  people,  who  never  succeeded  in 
bringing  some  deep  original  antagonisms  of  their 
folk-life  into  unity.  There  is  a  mysterious  ele- 
ment in  their  character,  an  unuttered  and  pos- 
sibly unutterable  strain  which  makes  them  as 
well  as  their  speech  and  institutions  an  unread 
hieroglyphic.  They  are  supposed  to  have  reached 
their  historic  seats  in  Italy,  lying  chiefly  between 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PEBIOD.  295 

the  Arno  and  the  Tiber,  a  little  before  the 
founding  of  Eome. 

Coming  to  their  Architecture,  we  find  the 
same  substrate  essentially  which  has  been  al- 
ready named  I^elasgic,'  and  which  has  been 
traced  through  Greece  back  into  Asia.  The 
Cyclopean  town-wall  in  its  chief  forms,  poly- 
gonal blocks  as  at  Cosa,  and  horizontal  courses 
of  stone  as  at  Volterra,  can  still  be  seen ;  some- 
times the  two  are  combined,  as  at  Eusellse.  The 
Etruscans  also  possessed  the  method  of  vaulting 
by  horizontal  layers,  as  has  been  noted  in  the 
Greek  Treasuries  (Thesauri)  and  Tombs.  In 
Rome  an  instance  i^  the  so-called  Tullianum,  the 
lower  chamber  of  the  Mamertine  prison,  which 
Sallust  describes  as  the  place  of  Jugurtha's  pun- 
ishment. 

But  the  chief  fact  ,of  early  Etruscan  construc- 
tion is  the  Arch.  Whence  it  came  is  useless  to 
inquire  The  Arch  we  may  repeat,  was  the  com- 
mon possession  of  Mediterranean  and  West- 
Asiatic  peoples  ;  it  belonged  to  that  architectural 
protoplasm  of  early  races.  But  the  Etruscans 
as  they  advanced  in  civilization,  retained  and  de- 
veloped the  Arch.  Herein  their  action  was  just 
opposite  to  that  of  the  Greeks,  who  threw  it 
away  after  their  Pelasgic  epoch.  Such  a  fact 
hints  a  profound  difference  of  national  character. 
The  bound-breaking  nature  of  the  Arch  must 
have   found   its   echo   in    the    Etruscan    heart. 


296  AECHITEGTURE  —  EUEOPEAN. 

Etruria  was  a  laud  of  Tombs  like  Egypt.  The 
attention  this  people  bestowed  upon  its  sepulchres 
has  preserved  them  to  this  day .  Herein  we  may 
observe  an  other-worldliness,  in  contrast  to  the 
Greek  this-worldliness. '  The  old  Etruscans  evi- 
dently put  much  stress  upon  the  Beyond,  the 
future  life;  we  cannot  help  thinking  that  Tuscan 
Dante  was  one  of  their  late -born  children,  who 
inherited  their  character  of  dwelling  upon  fu- 
turity, and  has  given  a  striking  picture  of  it 
modified  of  course  by  Christianity.  The  hill- 
sides of  Tuscany  still  at  the  present  time  are  full 
of  these  old  Etruscan  cemeteries,  and  surprise 
the  traveler  by  their  number  j^nd  the  care  in  their 
preparation. 

The  regular  or  vertical  Arch  is  seen  particu- 
larly in  entrances  through  walls.  The  city-gate 
of  Volterra  is  unique.  Out  gf  the  Arch  above  the 
entering  road  project  three  sculptured  human 
heads,  from  three  different  points:  from  the 
keystone  and  from  the  two  bases  resting  on  the 
wall.  Thus  the  Arch  seems  to  speak  down  to 
the  wayfarer  and  tell  its  character.  From  the 
center,  the  ke^^stone,  it  sends  its  pressure  not 
downward  but  sideward,  till  the  bases  are  reached, 
when  the  direct  line  of  gravity  again  prevails. 
The  Arch  may  be  conceived  thus  to  tell  of  open- 
ing a  protected  passage  through  the  obstructing 
wall  to  every  person  going  underneath  it  into  the 
city.     It  is   evident  from  these  figures  and  their 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  297 

position  that  the  Etruscan  must  have  reflected 
upon  the  nature  of  the  Arch,  and  by  a  signifi- 
cant symbol  expressed  his  view  of  its  character. 
But  the  boldest  manifestation  of  the  Etruscan 
Arch  is  found  in  the  large  sewer  of  Kome,  the 
Cloaca  Maxima,  which  empties  into  the  Tiber, 
and  is  still  performing  its  ancient  duty  of  drain- 
ing the  Forum  and  the  low  grounds  in  the  same 
neighborhood.  Its  mouth  is  said  by  some 
authorities  to  be  about  twenty  feet  wide,  which 
fact  indicates  that  the  possibilities  of  the  Arch 
were  known  to  the  Etruscans  who  are  reported 
to  have  built  this  sewer  in  the  sixth  century 
B.  C,  at  the  time  of  the  Etruscan  Kings  of 
Kome. 

One  other  structure  of  this  people  must  be 
mentioned:  the  Temple.  If  in  the  matter  of  the 
Arch  the  Etruscan  defied  the  Greek  influence,' on 
the  other  hand  he  yielded  to  this  influence  as  re- 
gards the  Temple.  It  has  no  vaulting,  no  Arch 
visible  at  any  entrance.  It  is  rectangular, 
though  not  oblong,  being  nearly  square  in  out- 
line. It  has  the  colonnade  in  front,  forming:  a 
kind  of  portico,  but  there  is  no  peristyle.  It 
possesses  a  walled Cella  with  three  separate  rooms, 
each  of  which  had  its  own  door  in  front  leadinsr 
to  the  image  of  a  deity.  The  entablature  was 
Greek  with  its  triangular  pediment,  but  there 
was  no  facade  to  the  rear.  The  strict  int.erco- 
lumniation  of  the  Greek  was  not  regarded ;  the 


298  ABCmTECTUBE— EUROPEAN. 

columns  stood  so  far  apart  often  that  wooden 
tie-beams  were  necessary. 

It  is  evident  that  such  a  building  shows  many 
Greek  elements,  but  by  no  means  developed  into 
unity  and  proportion.  The  Etruscan  Temple 
seemed  halved  crosswise  into  the  columnar  por- 
tion (Anticum)  and  the  walled  portion  (Posti- 
cum),  and  the  two  were  clapped  together  without 
any  inner  connection.  Very  different  was  the  rela- 
tion of  the  outer  surrounding  peristyle  to  the  inner 
cella  of  the  Greek  Temple.  Symmetry  was  also 
violated  by  the  disregard  of  the  law  of  proportion. 
Then  the  Greeks,  polytheistic  though  they  were, 
rarely  put  more  than  one  God  into  a  temple, 
even  if  economy  and  convenience  demanded  the 
contrary.  Thus  we  feel  in  the  Etruscan  Temple 
an  inner  scission,  a  lack  of  organic  wholeness. 
It  falls  asunder  of  itself.  The  Etruscan  treat- 
ment of  the  Greek  column  ruins  its  beauty,  or  at 
least  its  delicacy,  by  changes^  in  the  base  and 
capital  which  destroy  their  naive  expressiveness, 
as  well  as  by  the  omission  of  the  fluting  of  the 
shaft. 

Still  this  Etruscan  Temple  passed  over  to  the 
Romans,  who  preserved  it  to  the  last,  even  if 
Vitruvius,  probably  echoing  Greek  criticism, 
condemns  it.  And  its  career  did  not  stop  there. 
From  the  Romans  it  passed  through  Italy  to  the 
Renascence,  and  often  showed  its  form  in 
both  public  and  private  Architecture.     It  came 


THE  HELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  299 

to  America  and  is  really  the  pattern  for  our 
colonial  style  so-called.  Many  of  our  court- 
houses, state-houses  and  bank  buildings  of  the 
older  sort,  which  we  still  meet  with  throughout 
our  country,  have  their  original  norm  in  the 
Etruscan  Temple.  Finally,  this  very  building  in 
which  I  am  now  speaking  to  you,  my  hearers,  if 
you  will  note  the  four  columns,  when  you  go 
out,  with  portico  in  front  and  walled  house  to  the 
rear,  is  a  lineal  descendant,  even  if  remote,  of 
the  Etruscan  Temple. 

(c)  If  we  pass  to  the  south  of  the  Tiber  out 
of  Etruria  we  come  upon  a  wholly  different 
Italic  people  —  the  ancient  Latins,  whose  lan- 
guage proves  that  they  were  of  unquestioned 
Aryan  stock.  The  old  walls  of  their  towns  show 
everywhere  the  Pelasgic  masonry,  but  their  dia- 
lect, which  became  the  speech  of  Italy  and  of 
Europe,  was  their  most  enduring  monument. 
Their  truly  colossal  product,  however,  was  Rome 
itself,  which  they  founded  and  upheld.  We  have 
the  right  to  say  that  in  this  old  Latin  tribe 
dwelling  chiefly  between  the  Tiber  and  the  Alban 
Mountains  till  the  sea,  lay  an  original  germ  of 
organizing  power  which  was  unique  in  history. 
Their  speech  and  their  institutions  show  the 
spirit  of  system,  which  often  drops  into  formal- 
ism, but  whose  destiny  is  to  put  the  world  into 
law  and  order. 

Looking  into   the   primitive   Architecture    of 


300  ABCHITEG  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

this  people,  we  find  that  it  developed  particularly 
one  form  of  the  temple,  the  round.  This  it 
undoubtedly  received  from  its  Pelasgic  or  old 
Aryan  ancestry.  The  circular  form  of  structure 
is  seen  among  many  early  races,  chiefly  in  tombs, 
which  were  often  a  kind  of  sanctuary  or  temple. 
But  the  Latin  people  selected  it,  emphasized  it, 
put  their  national  seal  upon  it,  so  to  speak. 
Much  significance  lies  in  the  fact  that  the  two  of 
the  largest  buildings  of  ancient  Rome,  the  child 
of  Latium,  are  still  standing  and  are  round,  the 
Pantheon  and  the  Colosseum,  the  one  circular 
and  the  other  oval.  As  these  belong  to  imperial 
Rome,  we  see  that  the  round  building  persisted 
through  all  the  Roman  periods  to  the  last.  It 
was  the  original  Latin  bent  in  the  city,  and 
indicated  national  character.  And  it  even  passed 
over  into  the  Christian  world  with  Rome. 

Herein  is  indicated  a  basic  difference  between 
Greek  and  Latin  Architecture.  Hellas  employed 
the  rectilineal  for  her  sacred  structures  and 
shunned  the  curvilineal.  It  has  been  already 
noted  how  she  avoided  consciously  the  arch ; 
on  the  same  principle  she  would  have  nothing 
to  do  with  the  round  temple.  Still  the  Greek 
architect  knew  of  it,  and  could  erect  a  curvi- 
linear building  if  it  was  desired,  as  we  see  by 
the  Philippeion  at  Olympia  (about  336  B.  C). 
and  the  Tholus  atEpidaurus  (about  300  B.  C). 
Rome,  however,  being  the  city  of  appropriation, 


THE  BELLENISTIC  PERIOD.  301 

did  not  fail  to  appropriate  the  Greek  temple 
along  with  the  rest  of  the  world.  But  she  kept 
also  the  original  round  temple  of  her  Latiin 
ancestors. 

Rome  had  her  pre-imperial  or  ethnic  period 
of  Architecture.  As  already  indicated,  there 
lay  in  her  a  Latin  substrate  of  population  and 
character  which  persisted  to  the  end.  At  the 
same  time  other  influences  entered  her  life,  and 
she  became  the  arena  of  a  contest  between  archi- 
tectural tendencies.  The  Etruscan  square  temple 
with  its  front  colonnade  became  the  type  of 
many  Eoman temples.  Moreover  she  took  up  the 
Arch,  developed  it  and  applied  it  as  it  had  never 
been  applied  before,  finally  making  it  her  national 
symbol  in  the  Triumphal  Arch.  Such  were 
chiefly  the  Etruscan  architectural  influences. 
But  the  Greek  constructive  principles  also  entered 
ethnic  Rome.  The  peristyle  came,  the  Greek 
Orders,  and  the  Cella.  Then  followed  the  Hel- 
lenistic Architecture  of  the  Orient  as  developed 
by  the  Successors  of  Alexander,  with  their  com- 
bination of  the  Column  and  the  Arch,  as  well  as 
the  vaulting.  Also  the  Hellenistic  city-building 
began  to  show  itself  at  Rome  during  the  later 
Republic. 

The  round  temple  of  the  Latins  may  then  be 
deemed  the  architectural  substrate  of  Rome. 
The  old  Latin  deities,  Jupiter  and  Vesta  and  also 
others  had  originally  round  temples,  as  it  seems. 


802 .  AnCHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPBAN. 

This  introduced  the  curved  line  into  the  Roman 
soul,  which  never  threw  it  off  in  spite  of  foreign 
»  culture  and  influence,  Etruscan  and  Greek. 
Worshiping  in  round  sanctuaries,  the  curve  be- 
came a  part  of  the  Roman's  being,  of  what  con- 
nected him  with  the  God,  with  the  All.  We  can 
well  understand  how  the  curved  temple  opened 
the  way  in  his  heart  for  the  Arch.  For  the 
round  wall  is  the  Arch  prostrate,  lying  on  its 
side.  When  the  Etruscan  came  with  his  devel- 
oped Arch  upright,  the  Roman  was  ready.  He 
had  doubtless  seen  in  Latium  the  undeveloped 
Arch  as  the  common  possession  of  all  proto- 
European  peoples.  The  Cloaca  Maxima  has  a 
diameter  at  its  mouth  quite  as  great  as  many  a 
temple  of  Vesta,  which  we  may  regard  as  a 
double  Arch  built  up  in  horizontal  layers. 

Thus  the  old  Latin  institutional  world,  pro- 
genitor of  the  Roman,  erected  a  round  abode  for 
itself,  when  it  had  separated  from  the  primeval 
Aryan  protoplasm,  and  had  become  individual- 
ized. We  saw  the  Greek  institutional  world 
differentiating  itself  from  the  same  general 
source  and  selecting  an  oblong  rectangular  dwell- 
ing-place. Architecture  as  the  home  of  associ- 
ated Man  starts  with  this  difference  in  the  Greek 
and  Latin  stocksj  the  one  choosing  the  rectilineal 
for  the  primordial  Cella  of  its  God,  the  other 
the  curvilineal.  The  Greek  will  engirdle  his 
Cella  with  a  rectangular  peristyle,  while  the  Ro- 


THE  IIELLENlSfIG  PERIOD,  B03 

man  will  engirdle  his  Cella  with  a  circular  peri- 
style, which  is  thus  a  Greek  form  Romanized. 

3.  JEnd  of  the  Hellenistic  Period.  —  In  the 
fact  last  mentioned,  the  Romanizing  of  Greek 
forms,  lies  the  change  which  means  the  end  of 
the  Hellenistic  Period.  The  great  architectural 
expansion  eastward  and  westward  from  the  cen- 
tral Hellenic  city,  Athens,  has  been  traced  iu 
a  general  way.  But  a  new  concentration  In  a 
new  city  has  been  noticed  as  beginning  to  take 
place.  The  column  and  the  arch  have  been 
brought  together  at  Rome  in  a  kind  of  war ;  the 
round  and  the  rectangular  temples  exist  along- 
side of  each  other  without  any  adequate  recon- 
<jiliation ;  the  curvilineal  and  the  rectilineal  still 
show  their  inherited  antagonisms.  Yet  there 
are  indications  that  this  dualism  must  be  over- 
come at  no  distant  time  in  some  way.  Such  is  the 
struggle  while  Rome  is  still  ethnic  and  republi- 
can, not  yet  universal  and  imperial.  But  this 
last  change,  which  ushers  in  the  final  epoch 
of  the  classic  world  and  its  Architecture,  is  at 
hand  asserting  itself  and  must  be  given  a  hearing. 


304  ARCHITECTURE  —  EUROPE  A^T. 


III.  EoMAN  Imperial  Period. 

Again  a  great  concentration  of  Architecture 
we  are  to  witness,  greater  than  that  of  Athens, 
Alexandria,  or  Egyptian  Thebes,  truly  a  concen- 
tration and  transformation  of  the  world's  total 
construction  through  the  universal  spirit  of  the 
one  World-city  of  antiquity  and  indeed  of  all 
ages.  For  Rome  as  the  realized  World-city  has 
had  no  successor,  and  is  without  a  peer  to-day. 
And  this  imperial  quality  she  stamped  upon  her 
Architecture,  which  still  holds  sway  as  a  spiritual 
domain  forever  won,  and  active  long  after  her 
material  conquests  have  vanished. 

But  this  vast  concentration  was,  notwithstand- 
ing, one-sided,  and  had  its  process  which  shivered 
it  to  fragments.  There  was  something  greater 
than  even  Rome,  and  this  was  what  was  using  the 
Eternal  City  as  its  instrument,  making  the  same 
but  a  stage  of  its  movement.  If  Rome  centra- 
lizes for  a  time,  she  also  decentralizes;  her  con- 
solidated Empire  is  broken  up,  and  Architecture 
follows,  being  scattered  through  her  subject  na- 
tions up  to  the  imperial  boundaries.  Then  came 
the  blow  which  smote  all  these  structures  to  ruins 
which  are  still  the  wonder  of  men.  This  great 
architectural  drama  of  transformation  we  are  now 
to  study. 


BOMAK  IMPERIAL  PEBIOD.  305 

I.  In  the  total  sweep  of  Classic  Architecture, 
that  of  the  Roman  Empire  may  properly  be  re- 
garded the  third  and  last  Period,  on  a  line  with 
the  Hellenic  and  Hellenistic,  of  which  it  is  the 
rounding-out  and  completion  into  one  great 
cycle.  The  conflict  between  the  columnar  and 
arcuate  principles,  which  arose  in  the  Hellen- 
istic Period,  is  now  relatively  solved,  even  if  this 
solution,  as  is  usually  the  case,  starts  a  new  con- 
flict. The  transmitted  problem  is  substantially 
the  following:  Shall  the  entrance  to  the  archi- 
tectural Enclosure  be  Column  with  tie-beam,  or 
shall  it  be  the  Arch?  Imperial  Rome,  particu- 
larly in  her  native  Architecture  which  is  secular, 
answers  the  question  at  first  through  subjecting 
the  former  to  the  latter,  or  through  making  the 
arch  structural  and  the  column  ornamental.  In 
this  respect  Rome  is  the  conqueror,  subordinat- 
ing to  her  purposes  of  utility  and  gratification 
not  only  the  Greek  political  world,  but  also 
Greek  Architecture  along  with  Greek  philosophy, 
poetry,  art,  and  science.  All  of  these  she  re- 
garded at  best  as  decorative  of  her  victorious 
domination.  But  later  imperial  Rome  will  ac- 
quire culture,  and  will  begin  to  appreciate  the 
spiritual  supremacy  of  Greece  —  which  fact  also 
will  have  its  reflection  in  Architecture. 

In  the  first  century  of  the  Empire,  the  subju- 
gation of  Hellas  lurks  everywhere  in  her  appear- 
ance among  the  Romans,  who  were  the  subtlest 

20 


306  ABCHITEC  TUBE  —  E  UROPEAlf. 

conquerors  that  ever  lived,  entering  into  the 
spirit  of  their  subjects  and  assimilating  that  for 
the  purpose  of  putting  it  under  their  mastery. 
Yet  this  mastery  had  in  it  a  universal  element, 
nothing  less  than  the  law  common  to  all,  through 
which  they  ruled  the  world.  The  Oriental  con- 
querors were  very  different,  they  sought  to  dom- 
inate externally  without  assimilating  internally 
the  spirit  and  institutions  of  their  conquered 
nations,  which  remained  much  the  same  under 
any  ruler.  Hence  the  conquests  of  the  Eomans 
were  so  permanent,  they  knew  how  to  Komanize 
the  tribes,  peoples  and  races  under  their  sway, 
they  subjugated  and  transformed  institutions 
rather  than  individuals.  They  associated  man 
in  a  new  order  after  breaking  up  his  old  one, 
putting  him  under  a  new  Law  and  into  a  new 
Home.  Manifestly  this  Eomanizing  of  the  world 
will  have  its  counterpart  in  the  Eomanizing  of 
Architecture,  which  builds  just  the  institutional 
Home  or  the  edifice  of  the  new  order.  We 
have  therefore  the  right  to  expect  that  the 
Eomans,  being  great  builders,  will  embody  in 
constructive  forms  their  Empire.  As  they  have 
produced  an  organized  totality  of  nations,  so 
they  will  produce  an  organized  totality  of  Archi- 
tecture, in  which  all  the  architectural  elements 
of  these  nations  will  be  taken  up  and  ordered. 
This  concentration  will  first  occur  in  the  imperial 
city.     And  this  city  becoming    very  large,  will 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PEBIOD.  307 

concentrate  its  Public  Buildings,  its  institutional 
Architecture  both  secular  and  religious  into  one 
locality — the  Forum  and  its  surroundings .  Such 
will  be- the  universal  concentration  mirroring  the 
universal  Empire  with  its  central  authority. 

Already  during  her  pre-iraperial  period  Rome 
had  given  many  signs  of  having  selected  her 
fundamental  constructive  principle.  This  could 
not  be  the  small  confined  Norm  of  Greek  Archi- 
tecture, restrained  from  all  great  expansion  by 
the  limited  strength  of  its  tie-beam.  Eome,  in 
accord  with  her  imperial  character  and  duty, 
could  only  seize  upon  the  Arch,  which  like  her- 
self was  capable  of  indefinitely  extending  itself, 
of  reaching  out  and  over-canopying  its  world,  and 
of  holding  up  under  the  heaviest  burdens  laid  on 
its  shoulders.  Thus  the  Roman  architectural 
Enclosure  reveals  the  aspiration  to  become 
world-embracing,  it  gives  the  feeling  of  roomi- 
ness within  as  well  as  strength  without,  while  the 
arched  entrance  is  capable  of  becoming  wider  and 
wider  till  all  can  get  into  this  new  institutional 
Home  of  man. 

Greece  is  cut  up  by  sea  and  land  into  many 
distinct  parts.  Nature  has  individualized  her 
territory  with  greater  emphasis  than  anywhere 
else  on  the  globe.  Bays  and  mountains  seem  to 
vie  with  each  other  in  making  her  the  prolific 
mother  of  small  City-States,  separated  by  the 
rocky  walls  of  Nature  but  united   by  the  inlets 


308  AB  CHITEC  T  UBE  —  EUBO  PEAN. 

of  the  sea.  Italy  is  quite  the  opposite,  having 
no  such  indented  coast  line,  but  considerable 
stretches  of  contiguous  land,  and  some  impor- 
tant river-valleys.  On  the  whole  Nature  has 
united  Italy  internally  through  her  territory, 
not  externally  through  her  circumjacent  waters. 
She  can  be  associated,  and  consolidated  into  a 
political  whole,  and  so  will  bring  forth  the  one 
colossal  City-State,  ruler  over  all  the  rest.  And 
in  the  present  connection  we  must  add  that  she 
will  produce  a  colossal  Architecture  having  the 
same  imperial  unity  suggested  by  Nature  and 
realized  in  Institutions. 

II.  The  founder  of  the  Roman  Empire,  Julius 
Caesar,  had  already  conceived  the  idea  of  trans- 
forming Eome  architecturally  in  harmony  with 
the  political  transformation  from  the  republican 
to  the  imperial  principle.  He  built  the  Forum 
Julium,  and  thus  gave  an  indication  of  the  place 
and  the  manner  of  the  enlargement  of  the 
Roman  world-center,  which  was  kept  up  by  the 
later  Caesars.  But  he  was  cut  short  in  his  plans 
by  death.  His  work,  however,  was  taken  up  by 
his  successor  Augustus  after  conquering  Antony 
and  confirming  the  Empire. 

Vitruvius,  the  Roman  architect,  was  contem- 
poraneous with  Julius  Caesar  and  with  the  early 
years  of  Augustus.  As  an  official  of  the  State 
he  had  the  means  of  knowing  what  were  the  im- 
perial purposes  in  his  department.     He  has  left 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  309 

US  a  book  on  Architecture  which  he  dedicates 
to  Augustus.  In  this  dedication  he  speaks  of 
the  latter's  construction  of  many  edifices,  which 
*'  thou  art  now  building."  Vitruvius,  however, 
does  not  speak  of  the  later  great  stuctures  of  the 
Augustan  era,  they  probably  were  not  yet  erected 
when  he  wrote  his  book.  Still  he  bears  witness 
to  what  was  in  the  air :  Rome  was  entering  upon 
a  new  period  of  architectural  development. 

Thus  we  may  say  that  in  the  last  quarter  of  the 
first  century  B.  C,  the  new  imperial  Rome  had 
fully  started  to  build  itself.  A  centripetal 
movement  was  as^ain  showinoj  itself  in  Architec- 
ture,  not  now  toward  Athens  as  in  the  Hellenic 
Period,  nor  toward  Alexandria  as  was  somewhat 
the  case  in  the  Orient  during  a  part  of  the  Hel- 
lenistic Period,  though  this  was  essentially  a 
decentralizing,  scattering  movement.  At  present 
not  simply  from  the  rim  of  Hellas  but  from  the 
rim  of  the  whole  civilized  earth,  an  architectural 
current  sets  in  toward  Rome,  quite  parallel  to 
the  political  stream  of  the  time.  The  institu- 
tional world  has  now  the  call  to  unify  itself 
under  Roman  Law,  and  obeys.  No  longer  is 
man  to  live  a  dissociated  ethnical  life,  but  is  to 
be  socialized  by  a  bond  of  universal  association, 
at  least  for  a  while.  This  is  the  work  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  which  also  sets  about  building 
an  adequate  dwelling-place  for  the  new  institu- 
tional spirit  of  the  age.     We  may  hear  in  Vitru- 


310  ABCHITEGTUBE— EUROPEAN. 

vius  the  early  note  of  this  vast  architectonic 
scheme,  which  the  Empire  will  be  hundreds  of 
years  in  carrying  out  and  bringing  to  an  end. 
For  this  imperial  movement  will,  like  all  else, 
have  its  rise,  culmination  and  decline,  lasting, 
as  we  reckon  it,  some  three  centuries  and  more 
till  the  time  of  Constantine. 

It  was  Augustus  who  made  the  boast  (accord- 
ing to  Suetonius)  that  he  found  Rome  of  brick 
but  left  it  of  marble.  This  cannot  well  refer  to 
private  houses  but  to  public  edifices,  to  the 
buildings  of  the  State,  which  he  constructed  of 
stone.  His  successors  for  the  most  part  imitated 
him  in  this  respect.  The  Empire  was  to  build 
of  stone,  and  was  to  employ  the  Arch  not  merely 
underground  in  sewers,  where  it  could  not  be 
seen.  The  Arch,  however,  could  be  made  of 
brick  also,  so  that  it  was  possible  anywhere, 
without  stone  or  marble,  which  nature  has  to  fur- 
nish. Brick,  on  the  other  hand,  is  made  by  man 
from  the  common  earth  which  is  found  generally 
and  not  alone  in  Paros  or  Pentelicus.  We  may 
regard  brick  as  somewhat  plebeian,  marble  is 
certainly  aristocratic  or  imperial.  An  indulgence 
in  costly  and  exclusive  marble  is  one  of  the  char- 
acteristics of  the  Empire.  The  royal  Arch  of 
the  Cloaca  Maxima,  made  of  large  blocks  of 
travertine,  has  lasted ;  the  later  plebeian  Arches 
of  brick  have  quite  vanished.  Brick  is  indeed 
perishable,  having  a  tendency  to  go  back  to  the 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PEBIOD.  311 

soil  whence  it  was  taken;  but  stone,  if  of  a  good 
quality,  persists  with  Nature's  own  endurance. 
"When  Augustus  transformed  Rome  from  brick 
to  marble,  the  change  was  from  a  republican  to 
an  imperial  material,  corresponding  to  the  change 
in  government. 

The  original  and  lasting  Architecture  of  Rome 
is,  then,  not  possible  till  she  has  conquered  and 
unified  the  world  in  an  institutional  totality, 
which  calls  for  a  corresponding  abode  at  the 
center.  Mighty  and  long-continued  will  be  this 
outpour  of  the  building  spirit  at  Rome,  making 
an  epoch  in  the  history  of  Architecture,  to 
which  we  shall  often  have  to  go  back  in  tracing 
its  development  down  to  the  present.  Still 
to-day  the  forms  of  Roman  construction  for  cer- 
tain kinds  of  edifices  are  simply  repeated.  Let 
us  glance  next  at  what  endowments  Nature  gave 
to  the  immediate  locality  for  accomplishing  such 
a  vast  architectural  task. 

III.  Rome,  having  universal  sway  in  the  Empire, 
is  accordingly  to  have  an  imperial  universal  Archi- 
tecture. The  question  rises:  What  building 
materials  has  she  for  such  a  purpose?  These 
must  not  be  too  far  away,  and  otherwise  easily  ac- 
cessible and  workable.  Transportation  of  large 
masses  was  very  difficult  in  those  days,  nor  was 
there  any  steam  to  drive  colossal  implements. 
Nature  placed  in  the  vicinity  of  Rome  several 
kinds  of  stone  which  furnished  the  original  found- 


312  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

ation  of  her  architectural  character,  and  rendered 
possible  her  constructive  greatness.  Without 
these  bountiful  presents  handed  to  her  almost 
outright,  she  never  could  have  built  the  mag- 
nificent homes  of  her  Institutions  which  have 
furnished  the  ideal  pattern  for  the  future . 

First  to  be  mentioned .  is  the  stone  called  tra- 
vertine, taken  from  the  hills  in  the  territory  of 
Tivoli.  It  was  hard,  compact,  quite  uniform  in 
grain,  homogeneous;  it  could  resist  crushing 
and  disintegration  by  the  weather;  we  may  say 
that  it  had  a  decided  individuality  which  w^ould 
assert  itself  against  any  outside  assault.  Yet  it 
was  not  difficult  to  quarry  and  to  shape  with  good 
tools.  It  was  a  limestone,  deposited  by  water  in 
slow  and  regular  formation,  not  by  volcanic 
action.  When  burnt,  it  made  an  excellent  lime, 
for  which  Rome  was  famous,  and  in  a  way  unique. 
Rome  used  lime,  mortar,  cement  with  their  cohe- 
sive power  for  binding  together  very  diverse 
materials,  which  fact  curiously  reflects  the  city's 
character  and  function  in  history.  Greece  laid 
stone  on  stone  in  her  public  structures,  without 
any  tie  of  mortar  or  cement,  the  whole  being 
united  chiefly  by  nature's  gravity. 

Ifext  to  be  noted  is  the  stone  called  peperino, 
composed  largely  of  pebbles  and  volcanic  ashes 
solidified  by  heat.  Its  name  comes  from  the 
seeming  peppercorns  which  lie  imbedded  in  its 
composition,  making  it  a  mixed  salt-and-pepper 


BOM  AN  IM  PEBIAL  PEBIOD.  3 1 3 

rock.  Evidently  this  stone  is  heterogeneous,  in 
contrast  with  the  homogeneous  travertine,  and  is 
the  product  of  sudden  volcanic  eruption  rather 
than  that  of  gradual  sedimentary  deposition.  It 
comes  from  the  Alban  Hills  which  rise  up  a  few 
miles  from  Eome  across  the  compagna,  and  from 
which  Rome  herself,  or  at  least  her  Latin  ele- 
ment, originated.  Here  again  we  must  hear  the 
stone  speaking  out  its  Roman  nature.  For 
surely  that  was  supremely  the  character  of  Rome, 
especially  on  its  Latin  side :  it  fused  in  the  vol- 
canic fire  of  conquest  many  foreign  and  recalci- 
trant peoples,  and  thus  held  them  together  in 
the  unity  of  its  spirit,  yet  also  preserved  in  each 
a  kind  of  national  individuality.  The  Roman 
Empire  itself  was  a  sort  of  political  peperino, 
out  of  which  its  vast  institutional  structure  was 
built,  in  a  peculiar  subtle  harmony  with  the 
material  of  many  of  its  architectural  edifices. 
Let  us  say  then,  putting  together  our  two  kinds 
of  Roman  stone  thus  far  described,  that  Rome 
had  primarily  its  original  elementary  homogen- 
eous character,  the  slow  deposit  of  the  stream  of 
time  in  the  evolution  of  untold  ages  (as  the  River 
Teverone  deposited  during  countless  geologic 
ages  its  beds  of  travertine)  ;  and  on  the  other 
hand  that  this  unitary  homogeneous  Rome  had 
the  power  of  fusing  and  making  one  with  itself 
the  scattered  heterogeneous  elements  of  the  folk- 
races  strewn  over  the  globe. 


314  ABGHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

But  the  most  important  and  characteristic 
Roman  building  material  goes  by  the  name  of 
pozzolana,  supposed  to  be  derived  from  Pozzuoli 
near  Naples,  where  it  is  also  found.  It  may  be 
called  an  earth  composed  of  fine  sandy  particles, 
which,  being  mixed  with  small  stones  and  water, 
takes  a  semi-liquid  consistency  like  mortar; 
this  mortar  can  be  made  to  assume  quite  any 
shape  by  being  put  into  a  mold  usually  of  wood. 
Then  it  hardens  or  **  sets;  "  the  mold  is  removed 
and  the  object  comes  forth  as  solid  as  an  iron 
casting.  Here  we  see  a  kind  of  artificial  stone 
or  concrete,  which  has  the  peculiarity  of  being 
made  by  man  who  seizes  it  in  its  process  of 
formation,  which  shows  three  stages :  the  loose 
substance,  the  semi-liquid  mass,  and  the  solidi- 
fied object.  Such  is  the  significant  fact:  in  the 
previous  sorts  of  stone,  nature  made  the  ma- 
terial and  man  chiseled  it  into  shape  from  the 
outside ;  but  now  man  makes  his  material,  and 
causes  nature  to  produce  the  shape  from  within, 
through  her  process.  The  transition  from  the 
nature-made  stone  to  the  man-made  stone  is  suo^- 
tive  and  hints  a  great  step  taken  by  Rome.  For 
this  special  use  of  pozzolana  belongs  to  the  im- 
perial stage  of  the  city,  though  republican  Rome 
knew  of  it  as  a  base  for  mortar.  The  Dome 
of  the  Pantheon,  belonging  to  Hadrian's  time, 
is  made  of  pozzolana,  and  is  as  solid  as  an  in- 
verted iron  kettle  resting  upon  its  circular  wall, 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  315 

It  seems  to  have  taken  centuries  for  Rome  to  de- 
velop the  possibilities  of  pozzolana  which  is  the 
very  soil  lying  around  it  and  under  it  everywhere. 
Note  then  that  the  common  earth  upon  which 
Eome  stands,  is  capable  of  making  a  cement 
which  binds  together  the  most  diverse  materials. 
We  saw  a  similar  mixture  of  different  substances 
in  peperino,  but  that  was  the  work  of  nature, 
not  of  man.  It  has  been  observed  in  many 
Eoman  ruins  all  over  the  world  that  the  stone 
often  cracks  and  disintegrates  while  the  Roman 
cement  alongside  of  the  stone  remains  perfect. 
Middleton's  striking  expression  is  that  Rome  is 
the  eternal  city  through  its  pozzolana.  Certainly 
Roman  Architecture  gets  its  most  original  char- 
acteristic from  the  use  of  this  native  substance, 
which  not  only  unifies  diversity  of  materials,  but 
overarches  the  greatest  structures  of  Rome. 

It  was  this  pozzolana  that  rendered  possible 
the  bold  constructive  forms  of  the  imperial 
period.  The  wide  span  of  the  vaulted  ceilings 
in  Baths,  Basilicas,  and  Temples  are  built  of  this 
material;  so  are  the  ribbed  cross-vaults  and 
finally  the  domes.  These  forms  are  not  in -the 
present  case  made  of  voussoirs  of  stone,  or  even 
of  brick ;  they  are,  so  to  speak,  poured.  More- 
over another  peculiarity  is  that  they  have  no 
thrust  sidewards,  as  has  the  stone  arch ;  the  vault 
above  is  a  solid  piece  of  rock  and  holds  itself 
together.     Hence  there  is  no  need  of  such  but- 


316  AECHITECTUBE  — EUROPEAN. 

tresses  as  we  find  in  Gothic  cathedrals  to  coun- 
teract the  outward  push  of  arch,  vault  and  dome 
built  of  separate  layers  of  stone.  In  the  present 
case  arch,  vault,  and  dome  are  in  principle  a 
single  stone  hollowed  out  and  set  down  inverted 
on  a  wall,  which  must  indeed  be  strono^  enoug^h 
to  receive  the  total  vertical  pressure  from  above. 
The  Dome  of  the  Pantheon  may  be  regarded  as 
a  huge  porcelain  cup  turned  upside  down  with  a 
hole  in  the  bottom.  Such  a  structure  will  correct 
its  own  lateral  thrust. 

When  we  consider  that  the  most  original  por- 
tion of  imperial  Architecture  at  Rome  was  the 
development  and  application  of  vault,  cross- 
vault,  and  dome  for  covering  edifices  overhead, 
we  see  the  significance  of  pozzolana  in  Roman 
and  in  all  construction.  From  the  above-men- 
tioned fact  we  may  also  draw  the  suggestion  that 
a  nation  cannot  develop  the  inner  character  of 
its  commonest  materials  till  its  own  character  is 
ready.  It  seems  that  regal  and  republican  Rome 
trod  daily  upon  pozzolana  for  more  than  seven 
hundred  years  without  discovering  its  possibili- 
ties, which  imperial  Rome  first  realized  when  she 
had  conquered  the  world  and  organized  it  into 
one  solid  structure.  The  statement  sounds 
strange  that  Rome  had  to  unfold  her  own  uni- 
versal quality  before  she  could  unfold  the  uni- 
versal quality  latent  in  her  soil.  She  had  to 
conquer  the  world  before  she  could  conquer  her 


nOMAN"  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  317 

own  pozzolana.  So  every  spiritual  trait  in  man 
seems  to  find  its  counterpart  in  nature ;  it  re- 
quires the  new  character  of  an  age  to  discover 
and  utilize  the  new  property  of  matter.  Mind 
has  to  see  its  own  in  the  external  things  about 
it,  and  to  appropriate  the  same  for  its  self- 
realization.  The  savage  beholds  himself  in  his 
environing  scene,  so  does  the  scientific  man; 
each  in  his  own  way  finds  a  Self  realized  in  tree 
and  mountain.  So  the  Koman  at  last  found  his 
imperial  Ego  realized  in  pozzolana,  and  then 
and  not  till  then  could  he  employ  it  in  his  great 
architectural  designs. 

There  is  a  fourth  Roman  stone  which  must 
not  be  omitted.  This  is  the  so-called  tufa,  a 
kind  of  sandstone,  which  easily  crumbles  if  ex- 
posed to  the  weather.  But  if  coated  with 
cement  on  the  outside,  it  becomes  lasting,  as 
may  be  seen  still  in  many  an  old  Roman  build- 
ing. Thus  the  stone  which  is  naturally  soft  and 
perishable  at  Rome,  is  protected  and  made  eternal 
by  a  covering  of  hard  artificial  stone,  which  more- 
over improves  its  appearance,  causing  it  to  look 
like  marble. 

It  is  no  wonder  that  the  Roman,  trained  by 
these  lithic  bounties  of  his  own  territory,  became 
a  great  lover  of  stone  for  its  own  sake.  Stone 
was  a  part  not  only  of  his  outer  but  of  his  inner 
nature.  As  his  conquests  extended,  he  found 
many  beautiful  varieties  of   stone  belonging   to 


318  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EVBOPEAN, 

different  lands ;  he  coitld  not  help  appropriating 
them  too,  and  making  them  ornaments  of  his 
city.  Not  one  of  his  four  native  varieties  had 
brilliancy  of  color,  they  were  all  dull,  prosy,  utili- 
tarian. During  the  empire  the  variegated  marbles 
of  the  world  begin  to  march  toward  Rome  in 
order  to  decorate  the  house  of  the  master.  He 
even  carried  whole  obelisks  from  Egypt,  and  in 
his  city  are  several  of  them  still  standing.  He 
was  also  captivated  by  the  Egyptian  monoliths. 
One  cannot  to-day  live  much  in  contact  with  the 
ruins  of  Rome  without  feeling  its  innate  love  of 
stone,  originally  engendered  and  fostered  by  the 
before-mentioned  gifts  of  Nature. 

IV.  So  much  for  the  Roman  in  this  matter; 
but. treating  of  the  classic  world  we  cannot  leave 
out  the  Greek  who  always  comes  up  in  the  mind 
by  way  of  comparison.  The  Greek  had  also 
his  building  material  near  at  hand,  which  admir- 
ably fitted  his  character  and  his  world-historical 
task.  It  was  not  varied  but  single  and  unique, 
as  if  individualized  on  the  spot  for  the  man. 

The  difference  between  Greek  and  Roman 
methods  of  construction  lay  primarily  in  Nature 
outer  and  inner.  Therd  was  the  difference  of 
material,  corresponding  to  the  difference  in 
national  temper  and  character.  The  Greek  had 
no  mortar  and  used  none  in  his  walls ;  each  block 
of  marble  remained  a  separate  individual,  even 
when    put    into    the     structure;   stability    was 


B OMAN  IMPERIAL  PEIilOD.  319 

obtained  by  the  natural  force  of  gravity,  the 
stones  being  usually  large  and  closely  fitted. 
They  were  not  bound  together  by  an  artificial 
cement.  Undoubtedly  the  Koman  also  built  in 
this  way,  especially  during  the  Kepublic,  for  the 
Greek  was  his  teacher.  But  when  he  had 
matured  architecturally  he  employed  a  method 
more  consonant  with  his  world-embracing 
function  as  well  as  with  his  own  charac- 
ter. He  cemented,  both  literally  and  meta- 
phorically, both  politically  and  constructively. 
The  Greek  separation  it  was  his  lot  to  over- 
come, and  to  coalesce  the  atomic  individuals 
into  a  vast  coherent  Whole.  Among  the  ruins 
of  the  great  Baths  in  and  around  Eome,  one  still 
comes  upon  large  irregular  masses  of  Roman 
cement  which  refuses  to  go  to  pieces  when  every- 
thing which  it  held  together  has  quite  disap- 
peared. The  bond  of  Rome  has  shown  itself  far 
more  permanent  and  indeed  self-existent  that 
what  it  bonded. 

The  gift  of  Nature  to  the  Greek  was  the  very 
finest  material,  marble,  which  the  Athenian  quar- 
ried out  of  the  neighboring  mountains,  Hymet- 
tus  and  Pentelicus.  Unique  indeed  was  this 
gift  of  marble,  white  and  smooth,  brilliant  and 
fascinating  to  the  eye,  easily  workable  and  nobly 
monumental.  It  was  the  one  precious  stone  to 
the  Greek,  embodying  with  a  certain  sympathy 
the  fairest  conceptions  of  his  two  enduring  Arts, 


320  ABCHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

Sculpture  and  Architecture.  Still,  marble  has 
its  limits,  especially  on  the  side  of  utility. 
Moreover,  it  was  expensive,  as  well  as  exclusive 
and  aristocratic,  as  if  holding  Art  alone  to  be  the 
spirit  worthy  of  such  excellence  of  body. 

The  Eoman  has  not  merely  one  but  four 
building  stones,  as  already  described,  not  as 
precious  as  marble,  but  far  more  useful, 
in  fact  serving  utility  with  a  peculiar  fitness. 
Thus  the  limitation  of  the  Greek  material 
is  quite  abolished  at  Rome,  which,  not  con- 
fined to  the  one  sort,  has  freedom  of  choice  and 
of  adjustment  to  a  variety  of  needs.  Rome  has 
thus  the  power  of  combining  several  lithic 
resources,  and  indeed  can  make  or  rather  re-make 
stone  to  suit  her  purposes.  The  Greek,  as 
already  stated,  built  in  one  way  mainly:  he 
stratified  his  walled  structures  as  nature  does  her 
rocks,  superposing  one  on  top  of  the  other  in 
layers.  But  the  Roman  will  break  through  this 
monotonous  stratification  and  horizontalism  by 
erecting  arches  underneath  our  feet  for  the  bear- 
ing of  huge  burdens  and  over  our  heads  for  the 
covering  of  vast  spaces. 

Rome,  however,  is  not  going  to  be  confined  to 
these  four  Roman  stones.  She  will  conquer  all 
the  marbles  of  the  world  and  bring  them  to  her 
seat  on  the  banks  of  the  Tiber  as  trophies  of  her 
universal  dominion.  White  marble  from  Greece, 
granite  columns    and  obelisks  from  Egypt,  red, 


nOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PEBIOD.  321 

green,  yellow,  mottled  shapes  of  stone  she  gath- 
ered into  her  imperial  center,  rummaging  the 
whole  globe  for  a  variety  of  colors  to  adorn  her 
temples  and  palaces.  Thus  she  compelled  the 
very  stones  of  all  conquered  lands  to  a  kind  of 
obedience  and  service.  The  homely  native  rocks 
of  Rome  are  decorated  with  this  brilliant  varie- 
gated pageant  of  foreign  stones  in  a  kind  of 
triumphal  procession  following  the  conqueror  as 
a  throng  of  prisoners  from  the  extreme  bounds  of 
the  then  known  world.  To-day  we  can  see  some 
of  them  in  the  churches  and  museums  of  the 
city,  or,  sauntering  among  the  ruins,  kick  up 
their  bright  fragments  from  the  debris  of  ancient 
edifices. 

Thus  Rome  shows  two  chief  classes  of  stones, 
the  native  and  the  foreign;  also  two  very  dif- 
ferent ways  of  employing  them.  The  first  she 
used  in  her  great  public  works,  having  confidence 
in  them  alone.  The  second  she  adorned  herself 
with,  putting  them  on  the  outside  of  her  own 
more  homely  materials.  Particularly  her  im- 
perial interiors  were  encased  in  many-colored 
slabs  of  stone  from  all  her  subject  countries. 
There  were  rooms  in  the  palaces  of  the  Csesars 
and  in  the  Baths  of  Diocletian  and  Caracalla 
which  would  reflect  back  to  the  Roman  flatter- 
ingly the  countenance  of  himself  as  the  world- 
conqueror  beholding  himself  in  the  polished 
glassy  surfaces  of  the  variegated  marbles  of  his 

21 


S^^  AUCmTECTVBE  —  JS?  UTtOPEAlt, 

conquered  lands.  And  these  were  now  connec- 
trated  upon  one  spot,  into  one  building.  This 
self-reflection  of  Rome's  unity  with  all  its  variety 
was  the  main  characteristic  of  Eoman  Art,  which 
was  colored  not  by  the  individual  painter's  brush, 
but  by  all  Nature  in  every  portion  of  the  globe. 
Very  confined  comparatively  seems  the  Greek 
with  his  one  white  material  in  all  its  simplicity 
and  narrow  perfection.  The  world  is  not  for 
him,  but  his  own  small  City-State  which,  how- 
ever, must  show  itself  in  Rome  as  only  a  part  of 
a  greater  totality.  We  may  indeed  conceive 
that  one  white  Greek  color  as  passing  through 
the  spectrum  of  history  and  separating  itself 
into  the  manifold  tints  of  the  Roman  architec- 
tural rainbow. 

The  dawn  of  a  new  era  may  be  glimpsed  in  this 
imperial  love  of  colored  marbles  for  the  interior 
of  the  house.  The  Roman's  own  interior  called 
for  it  and  found  it  harmonious  with  changes 
going  on  within.  He  was  growing  more  internal, 
more  subjective,  since  the  play  of  tints  corre- 
sponds to  the  play  of  emotions.  On  many  sides 
we  find  this  introversion  expressed  in  imperial 
Rome.  Christianity  had  come  and  responded  to 
the  same  tendency,  being  a  deeply  internal,  sub- 
jective religion,  particularly  in  its  early  period. 
The  Christian  Basilica  will  keep  these  variegated 
marbles  and  fill  its  interior  with  color,  out  of 
which  will  spring  medieval  Painting. 


nOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD,  323 

V.  Having  noted  the  various  materials  of  Ko- 
man  Architecture,  we  may  next  give  some  study 
to  the  forms  into  which  they  were  made.  Here 
again  we  start  with  diversity,  as  several  archi- 
tectural forms  were  competing  for  the  favor  of 
Rome  when  the  Empire  began.  There  was  the 
Etruscan  temple,  also  the  ancient  Pelasgic  Arch 
as  developed  by  the  Etruscans,-  the  fully  ripened 
Greek  Orders,  and  finally  the  round  Latin  temple 
(also  old-Italic,  and  even  old- Aryan)  —  all  of 
them  existing  together  in  a  struggle  at  Rome 
when  she  was  passing  into  her  imperial  epoch. 
Which  will  she  select  as  her  future  architectural 
representative?  She  will  employ  them  all,  often 
separately,  but  oftener  combining  them  into  some 
kind  of  a  totality  by  that  wonderful  cement  of 
hers,  both  material  and  spiritual.  Thus  Archi- 
tecture will  also  manifest  the  peculiar  Roman 
syncretism  so  well  known  in  her  Art,  Literature, 
and  Philosophy,  and  finally  in  her  Religion. 

The  struggle  of  constructive  forms  lay  chiefly 
between  the  curvilineal  and  the  rectilineal,  and 
primarily  perhaps  between  the  round  and  rec- 
tangular temples  of  the  Gods,  since  the  contest 
must  have  been  religious  at  the  start.  How  shall 
we  build  the  home  of  our  deity?  could  not  help 
being  a  fundamental  question.  Both  the  foreign 
temples,  the  Etruscan  and  the  Greek,  were  recti- 
lineal and  rectangular ;  but  the  sanctuary  of  the 
old  Latins,  from  whom  the  dominant  strand  of 


324  ABCHlTECTUttE  —  EUMOPBAN. 

Eome's  development  sprang,  was  circular.  The 
Roman  had  in  him  the  dual  composition:  an 
original  elemental  character  of  his  own,  but  also 
the  absolute  need  of  appropriating  and  mixing 
with  his  own  other  tribal  and  national  characters. 
His  nature  was  cementive,  and  must  find  some- 
thing to  cement.  Hence  he  will  not  only  bring 
together  but  tie  together  a  variety  of  religious 
edifices,  seeking  to  unite  fundamentally  in  con- 
struction the  round  and  the  right  line.  Between 
these  two  elements  Rome  will  fluctuate  during 
her  whole  imperial  period,  and  will  take  both 
along  when  she  turns  Christian. 

More  succinctly  the  same  struggle  can  be 
stated  as  that  between  the  Column  and  the  Arch, 
representing  in  a  general  way  the  Greek  and 
Latin  tendencies.  The  Column,  or  better  the 
trabeate-columnar  principle,  the  Roman  could  not 
wholly  use  nor  wholly  abolish  in  his  architectural 
construction.  He  felt  the  weakness  of  the  tie- 
beam,  and  this  one  weakness  involved  the  entire 
Greek  Norm  with  its  three  Orders.  If  the  sup- 
porting tie-beam  should  collapse,  the  supported 
roof  and  ceiling  must  come  down.  Hence  the 
Roman  demanded  a  stronger  support  for  the 
great  superincumbent  burden  which  he  laid 
upon  his  construction.  He  found  it  naturally  in 
the  Arch.  • 

Moreover,  the  trabeate-columnar  form  violated 
the  Roman's  sense  of  economy,  which  was  very 


BOM  AN  IMPERIAL  PEBIOD.  325 

acute.  He  could  not  help  seeing  that  the  Col- 
umn would  support  a  far  greater  weight  than  any 
Greek  Order  put  upon  it.  The  Greek  himself 
felt  this  structural  dissonance  (as  well  as  weak- 
ness) in  his  work,  and  sought  in  his  way  to  over- 
come it,  though  he  could  not,  without  giving  up 
his  Norm.  It  is  this  which  causes  the  movement 
of  the  Greek  Orders,  through  Doric,  Ionic  and  Cor- 
inthian, with  the  continued  increase  in  the  height 
of  the  Column,  and  the  relative  decrease  in  its 
diameter.  Particularly  the  old  Doric  rouses 
this  feeling  of  an  unnecessary  waste  of  power. 
The  tie-beam  was  the  ever-present  clog  which 
would  not  let  the  native  strength  of  the  Column 
be  utilized.  The  Greek  could  not  leap  out  of 
his  architectural  skin  and  so  he  kept  the  tie- 
beam  (architrave)  in  spite  of  its  insufficiency. 
But  the  Roman,  that  practical  son  of  utility, 
seized  upon  the  Arch  with  its  unlimited  power 
of  support,  and  made  it  supplant  the  weak  tie- 
beam,  which  he  did  not  trust.  Still  he  could  not 
do  without  the  beautiful  Greek  Order,  so  he 
reduced  it  to  an  ornamental  expression  of  his 
power. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  the  practical  Roman 
with  his  Arch  directs  his  main  assault  upon  the 
weak  spot  in  Greek  construction,  the  tie-beam, 
which  really  determines  inter-columniation,  and 
this  gives  the  modulus  or  measuring  unit  of  the 
whole    structure.     Hence    it    comes    that    the 


326  ABGHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

Eoman  does  away  with  the  modulus  which  is  the 
principle  of  proportion  governing  every  part  or 
member  of  the  Greek  Temple,  whose  harmo- 
nious order  and  beauty  spring  from  this  propor- 
tion. Such  is  the  point  at  which  we  can  see  the 
Eoman  undermining  Greek  beauty  through 
grounds  of  economy  and  utility. 

We  may  also  observe  in  the  preceding  fact, 
how  deeply  the  Greek  was  determined  by  Nature. 
For  the  strength  of  that  marble  tie-beam  (or  arch- 
itrave) controlled  the  separation  of  the  columns 
from  one  another  (inter-columniation),  and  this 
separation,  taken  as  the  measuring  standard  or 
modulus,  proportioned  the  entire  edifice.  Hence 
the  strength  and  tenacity  of  grain  which  Nature 
gave  to  a  block  of  Pentelic  marble  had  a  decided 
share  in  compelling  into  existence  the  beautiful 
proportions  of  the  Athenian  Parthenon,  which 
dared  not  exceed  a  certain  inter-columniation. 
But  such  limits  the  Arch  wholly  disregards,  and 
utterly  defies  the  Greek  modulus.  And  the 
Roman  necessarily  partook  of  the  spirit  of  his 
chief  constructive  principle.  Nay,  we  have  seen 
him  making  a  new  material  out  of  his  own  soil 
(pozzolana),  and  with  it  rearing  arches  and 
vaults  and  domes  which  the  ready-made  stone  of 
Nature  could  not  compass.  Thus  the  Eoman,  in 
one  of  his  tendencies,  broke  over  that  beautiful 
but  limited  Greek  world,  defying  its  inner  law  of 
proportion  in  the  presence  of  another  and  doubt- 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  327 

less  higher  law.  Still  he  will  not  destroy  the  fair 
Greek  structure,  but  will  take  it  along  and  cement 
it  to  his  own  constructive  forms,  externally  at 
first,  and  then  internally.  For  the  right-lined 
trabeate-columnar  principle  of  Hellas  was  not  an 
easy  thing  for  the  Eoman  to  digest  and  assim- 
ilate. In  fact  it  took  him  several  centuries. 
Eude,  rustic  Latium  could  not  help  being  domi- 
nated at  first  by  the  highly  civilized,  artistic  Norm 
of  Greek  Architecture.  At  last,  however,  the 
Arch  gets  mounted  on  two  columns  and  takes  the 
place  of  the  Greek  Architrave,  which  no  longer 
determines  the  distance  between  them .  Thus  the 
trabeate-columnar  (Greek)  passes  into  the 
arcuate-columnar  (Koman),  and  at  once  a  new 
Architecture  begins  to  appear.  For  the  Column 
as  supporter  now  supports  the  Arch  with  its 
limit-transcending  character,  instead  of  the 
Architrave  (tie-beam)  with  its  very  limited  char- 
acter, which  always  kept  the  columns  close  to- 
gether, and  never  developed  their  strength. 
Thus  the  Arch  and  the  Column  became  mutuall}^ 
integrated,  we  might  say  married ;  the  female 
(the  fair  Greek)  and  the  male  (the  strong 
Koman)  are  internally  united  and  lovingly  paired, 
whereof  the  result  will  be  a  new-born  Architec- 
ture reaching  beyond  the  classic  world. 

VI.  At  this  point  it  will  be  helpful  for  our 
future  study  to  make  a  brief  classification  of  the 
chief  ways  in  which  the  Column  and  Arch  stood 


828  ABCHITECTURE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

m 

related  to  each  other  at  Rome  during  the  Empire. 
The  twain  experience  quite  a  changeful  evolution, 
from  separation  and  mutual  aloofness,  through  a 
stage  of  lordship  and  subjection,  to  complete 
reconciliation  and  organic  harmony.  These 
phases  we  may  touch  upon  severally. 

(a)  In  the  beginning  of  the  imperial  epoch 
(as  already  noted)  there  was  a  time  when  divers 
architectural  strangers  were  in  the  city,  each  one 
separately  suing  for  Roman  recognition.  And 
they  all  were  received  quite  impartially  by  their 
host  and  given  a  place  to  locate.  If  not  side  by 
side,  certainly  not  far  apart,  stood  the  Greek 
peristylar  temple,  the  Etruscan  prostylar  temple, 
the  Latin  round  temple,  as  well  as  many  arched 
openings  and  passages  in  buildings  and  in  public 
works.  It  was  an  eclectic  time,  an  era  of  re- 
ception and  selection  in  which  all  the  architectural 
candidates  of  the  different  nations  came  into  the 
presence  ofthe  Roman  judge  in  a  kind  of  equality 
before  the  court  of  last  resort  with  their  separate 
-pleas. 

(6)  The  next  prominent  stage  is  one  of  Roman 
lordship  and  Greek  subordination.  The  Arch  in 
and  of  itself  subjects  the  Column  with  Entabla- 
ture to  be  a  mere  external  ornament  of  itself 
without  any  inner  constructive  participation. 
Thus  the  Greek  Order  with  all  its  members  is 
clapped  on  the  outside  of  some  arched  passage, 
without  any   serious  function  of  upbearing  the 


BOMAN  IMPERIAL  PEBIOD.  329 

main  structure,  apparently  a  kind  of  tricked-out 
valet  or  concierge  at  the  front  door.  Such  is 
now  the  Roman  act:  it  reduces  the  original 
Greek  constructive  form  to  a  decoration  and 
thus  makes  it  a  servant  of  the  Roman  Arch. 

Such  a  change  began  early,  as  it  lay  d-eep  in 
the  Roman  consciousness  and  also  in  the  Roman 
deed;  for  had  not  Greece  been  conquered  by 
Rome  and  subjected  to  her  sway?  Already  we 
can  see  this  principle  at  work  in  the  Theater  of 
Marcellus  of  whose  walls  some  remnants  are  still 
standing  at  Rome ;  but  the  most  striking  example 
and  probably  its  culmination  can  be  observed  in 
the  Flavian  Amphitheater  (Colosseum).  The 
date  of  the  Theater  of  Marcellus  is  usually  placed 
at  about  20  B.  C. ;  thus  fully  a  century  lies 
between  the  two  structures.  This  peculiar  artis- 
tic expression  of  Rome  in  relation  to  conquered 
Hellas  probably  lasted  through  the  whole  period 
of  Roman  domination,  though  with  very  difer- 
ent  degrees  of  emphasis. 

Still  this  period  of  service  and  subjection  of 
Greek  forms  has  a  profound  meaning  and  a  very 
important  place  in  the  development  of  Architec- 
ture. Column  and  Entablature  have  retained 
their  decorative  function  to  this  day,  quite  as  the 
Roman  applied  them.  Such  a  fact  indicates 
that  he  took  a  step  deeply  in  accord  with  the 
nature  of  all  architectonic  Art,  which  has  the 
general    tendency    to   make    former    structural 


330  ABGHITECTURE  —  E  UBOPEAN, 

shapes  decorative  and  explanatory  of  later  and 
more  complex  construction.  When  the  Roman 
turned  the  Hellenic  forms  into  the  outer  orna- 
ment of  his  edifices,  he  recognized  their  artistic 
value  for  expressing  the  significance  of  his  work, 
and  of  all  Architecture.  He  recognized  that 
they  tell  not  only  their  own  principles  of 
structure,  but  the  principles  of  all  structure. 
Hence  they  are  the  interpreters  of  the  Eoman 
Arch  to  the  eye  and  the  thought,  telling  really 
what  it  means  to  the  Roman  himself  who  was  not 
strong  in  an  original  power  of  artistic  utterance. 
What  the  Arch  is  and  does  as  supporting  and 
supported,  as  up-bearing  and  down-bearing,  re- 
mains implicit,  till  the  Greek  forms  express  its 
constructive  meaning.  This  immediate  power 
of  self-expression,  whereby  the  work  declares  its 
idea  in  its  very  appearance,  is  the  peculiar  gift 
of  Greece  in  all  the  Arts.  Hence  to  this  day  its 
architectural  forms  are  the  main  ornaments  of 
building.  The  humblest  carpenter  can  be  seen 
putting  a  remote  descendant  of  the  Greek  cor- 
nice upon  the  simple  frame  house  of  one  story, 
and  a  far-off  echo  of  Column  and  Architrave 
often  lino^ers  around  the  door  and  window  of  the 
cabin  of  the  American  backwoodsman.  It  was 
the  Roman  who  first  appreciated  the  ornamental 
or  rather  expressional  value  of  all  the  members 
of  Greek  Architecture  and  gave  them  a  new  func- 
tion in  Art.     And  that  function  has  proved  to 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  331 

be  the  most  lasting  and  most  popular,  and  of  the 
most  universal  import.  Few  Greek  temples  are 
erected  now,  but  the  separate  forms  and  the 
mouldings  of  the  Greek  temple  are  more  used 
to-daj  than  ever  before.  They  constitute  an 
architectural  lanojuasje  which  has  not  been  im- 
proved  upon,  for  they  seem  to  be  able  to  tell 
what  Architecture  is  doing  in  these  modern  times 
as  well  as  what  it  did  in  old  Greece.  We  repeat 
that  it  was  Rome  who  first  recognized  and  em- 
ployed this  Hellenic  architectural  speech,  and 
transmitted  it  as  speech  (in  the  form  of  orna- 
ment) down  the  ages  —  the  outer  expression  of 
the  structural  soul.  Such  is  one  of  her  great 
services  to  this  Art,  often  not  duly  appreciated 
and  sometimes  actually  regretted  and  even 
reprobated. 

At  this  point  we  behold  a  new  architectural 
separation  or  twofoldness,  that  between  the 
decorative  and  the  constructive  principle,  between 
the  internal  meaning  and  the  external  expression. 
We  recollect  that  the  Greek  started  his  true 
temple  with  the  separation  into  Peristyle  and 
Cella,  the  Peristyle  being  an  externalization  of 
the  interior  columns  of  the  Egyptian  temple. 
But  at  Eome  a  new  separation  takes  place :  the 
trabeate-columnar  principle  of  the  Peristytle  is 
in  its  turn  externalized,  being  transformed  into 
an  outward  ornament  for  signifying  the  reality 
within. 


332  ABCIII  TEC  TUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

It  would  thus  seem  that  a  people,  if  it  is  a^reat 
builder,  reduces  the  structural  principle  of  its 
predecessor  in  Architecture,  to  a  decoration  of 
itself.  From  Egyptian  to  Greek,  from  Greek  to 
Roman,  and  then  from  Roman  to  Christian  seems 
to  run  a  line  of  this  kind  —  a  line  of  continuous 
transition  from  being  constructive  to  becoming 
decorative.  Still  through  all  these  changes  the 
persistent  decorative  expression  of  Architecture 
remains  Greek,  even  if  other  forms  flit  about  it 
in  tjie  nature  of  passing  ornamental  fancies. 

Such  is  the  architectural  lordship  exercised  by 
Roman  Arch  over  the  Hellenic  Norm.  It  is  evi- 
dent that  Rome,  conscious  of  her  political  su- 
premacy, is  going  to  build  it  into  her  public 
edifices,  especially  into  her  secular  Architecture, 
proclaiming  it  doubtless  with  the  greatest  empha- 
sis in  her  Triumphal  Arches.  But  with  the 
advance  of  culture  she  becomes  conscious  of 
another  fact :  Hellas  dominates  her  intellectually. 
It  is  a  Roman  poet  who  declares :  Grcecia  capla 
ferum  victorem  cepit.  Out  of  such  a  conscious- 
ness evolves  a  new  phase  of  architecture. 

(c)  The  preceding  relation  between  Arch  and 
Column,  that  of  lord  and  slave,  was  not  one  of 
equality,  or  even  of  mutual  necessity.  The 
Roman  Arch  performed  its  function  without  any 
help  from  the  Column,  which  in  turn  had  its 
own  meani;.g  and  history  apart  from  the  Arch. 
But  with  time   the  lord  set. free  his  slave,  and 


noMAK  iMPEniAL  psmop. 

even  took  him  into  partnership  when  he  found 
out  the  full  worth  and  importance  of  the  latter. 
It  must  be  granted  that  the  uplifting  of  the  lowly 
lay  deep  in  the  Eoman  character,  in  spite  of  its 
love  of  domination.  Rome  elevated  the  plebeian 
during  her  republican  era,  and  she  granted  citi- 
zenship to  the  conquered  during  her  imperial 
era.  In  like  manner  she  raised  the  Arch  from 
the  sewer  and  its  subterranean  hiding-place  to 
the  loftiest  architectural  position,  even  to  cover- 
ing the  temple  of  the  God.  And  now  she  is 
going  to  grant  liberty,  equality  and  even  fra- 
tepnity  to  the  previously  enslaved  Greek  Norm 
of  Architecture. 

How  is  this  to  be  done?  The  Arch  we  may 
see  gradually  placing  itself  on  the  top  of  two 
Columns,  which  thus  become  its  necessary  or- 
ganic support,  without  which  it  would  tumble  to 
ruin.  It  supplants  that  Architrave  whose  weak- 
ness and  uneconomic  character  have  been  already 
set  forth.  Thus  the  Arch  heals  the  fundamental 
trouble  of  the  Greek  Orders.  The  Column  now 
has  not  an  uncertain  horizontal  tie-beam  but  an 
arched  tie-beam  which  will  support  as  great  a 
weight  as  the  Column  itself.  It  is  evident  that 
we  have  here  passed  from  the  trabeate-columnar 
principle  of  Greece  to  the  arcuate-colunmar 
principle  of  Rome  —  which  is  indeed  one  of  the 
last  important  acts  of  ancient  Classic  Architec- 
ture.   Manifestly  the  Column  and  the  Arch  after 


334  ABCHITECTUBE -^  BUBOPEAN, 

long  separation  and  estrangement  have  found 
each  other,  have  come  together  in  mutual  recon- 
ciliation and  love,  and  are  wedded  for  all  time- 
Our  beautiful  Greek  Norm  no  longer  merely 
decorates  the  Roman  master,  but  lifts  him  up 
heavenward,  from  which  lofty  perch  he  pro- 
claims a  new  architectural  world. 

We  may  mark  some  of  the  results.  The  in- 
ter-columniation  is  set  aside,  the  Columns  being 
now  determined  by  the  Arch  which  widens  or 
narrows  itself  according  to  the  emergency.  Also 
the  regular  height  of  the  Columns  is  not 
observed,  since  the  reason  for  the  Greek  modulus 
is  taken  away,  and  the  whole  arcuate-columnar 
form  becomes  elastic,  flexible,  responding  to  the 
inner  call  and  not  to  the  feeble  cry  of  the  Archi- 
trave. Also  the  Peristyle  or  self-returning  row 
of  Columns  engirdling  the  Cella  on  the  outside, 
is  broken  up  and  begins  to  be  made  internal  for 
supporting  the  roof  of  an  edifice  overarching 
wide  spaces.  As  the  first  act  of  the  Classic 
Architecture  was  to  externalize  this  Peristyle,  so 
its  last  act  would  seem  to  be  the  internalizino:  the 
same  in  unity  with  the  Arch. 

Such  we  may  deem  to  be  the  sweep  through 
the  entire  world  of  Greco-Roman  construction, 
from  its  beginning  in  the  trabeate-columnar  to 
its  evolution  in  the  arcuate-columnar  principle. 

VII.  With  this  general  outlook  over  the  field 
of  Classic  Architecture  in  one  direction  (that  of 


kOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  B35 

Column  and  Arch),  we  must  go  back,  study  in 
greater  detail  the  Arch  itself  which  has  been 
lurking  in  construction  from  the  beginning,  un- 
able somehow  to  come  to  its  full  validity,  yet 
always  making  itself  felt  even  when  absent,  as  it 
is  in  Greek  Architecture.  We  noted  the  Pelas- 
gic  Arch,  with  layers  both  horizontal  and  upright, 
as  the  common  possession  of  many  early  peoples, 
a  potential,  undeveloped  form  waiting  for  the 
future.  Its  next  fate  was  to  be  cast  off  by  the 
Greek  architects  till  they  met  it  in  the  Hellenistic 
Period,  both  in  the  East  and  the  West,  whereby 
a  great  architectural  struggle  takes  place  between 
the  Arch  and  Column  with  the  tie-beam.  But 
now  the  Eoman  has  come  to  the  front  as  the  con 
queror  of  the  world,  and  there  is  no  doubt  of  his 
choice.  He  selects  the  Arch  with  as  great  em- 
phasis as  the  Greek  once  rejected  it,  and  with  far 
greater  power. 

We  have  already  given  our  answer  to  the  ques- 
tion why  the  Greek  rejected  the  Arch.  The  cor- 
responding question  now  arises,  why  did  the 
Eoman  choose  the  Arch?  In  general,  for  the 
same  reason  that  caused  the  Greek  to  turn  away 
from  it;  that  which  made  it  un-Greek  makes  it 
Roman  in  the  present  case.  The  Arch  cannot  be 
confined  to  the  limited  Greek  frame-work  of 
Column  with  tie-beam,  but  is  inherently  limit- 
transcending,  world-conquering,  all-upbearing 
like  the  Roman  spirit  itself.     We  may  truly  say. 


336  AncmTECTUR^  —  ETTBOPISAN'. 

that  which  made  the  Greek  shiver  internally  — 
the  Arch  —  shivered  his  Architecture  externally. 
For  the  Column  and  its  tie-beam  must  be  broken 
to  pieces,  reshaped  into  voussoirs,  and  re-con- 
structed into  a  new  and  different  whole  in  order 
to  produce  the  Arch.  Figuratively  the  Koman 
principle  smote  the  Greek  into  fragments,  and  put 
them  together  into  its  own  architectural  Norm. 
The  Arch  changes  the  downward  thrust  of  support 
to  a  sideward,  uniting  into  one  shape  the  two  or 
even  three  Greek  pieces  (the  tie-beam  with  its 
two  Columns) .  Moreover  these  legs  of  the  Arch 
can  be  widened  indefinitely,  being  no  longer 
hampered  by  the  limits  of  the  tie-beam.  And 
the  shoulder  of  the  Arch  can  bear  up  indefinitely 
the  superincumbent  burden,  becoming  even  firmer 
by  the  weight.  Verily  the  imperial  Arch,  like 
imperial  Csesar  himself,  doth  bestride  the  world 
like  a  Colossus. 

Before  the  Roman  came,  and  even  in  his  earlier 
epoch,  the  Arch  seemed  an  enslaved  thing,  con- 
demned to  do  the  most  menial,  filthy  service, 
largely  hidden  underground  in  drains,  sewers, 
tombs.  From  the  Nile  and  Euphrates  to  the 
Tiber  there  seems  to  be  a  tendency  to  keep 
it  away  from  the  sunlight,  as  something  very 
necessary  and  useful,  but  indecent  for  the 
public  eye,  somewhat  as  man  regards  his 
alimentary  canal  and  its  excretions.  As  the 
Roman  visitor  of  to-day,  taking  a  little  boat  ride 


ROMAN'  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  337 

on  the  Tiber,  passes  the  mouth  of  the  Cloaca 
Maxima,  the  Italian  boatman  will  give  it  a  popu- 
lar but  unmentionable  name  which  probably 
comes  down  from  hoary  antiquity,  as  it  throws 
out  the  contents  of  Roman  cesspools  into  the 
river.  In  fact  the  word  Cloaca  became  an 
epithet  of  defamation  and  insult  at  Eome,  and 
we  find  it  even  in  writers  of  the  Renascence 
blackguarding  their  opponents  in  Ciceronian 
Latin  —  in  which  vileness  they  were  often  very 
strong,  though  weak  enough  in  other  respects. 
The  Assyrians,  however,  did  the  Arch  some 
honor  by  putting  it  into  their  palaces,  even  if 
this  largely  arose  from  the  necessity  of  using 
brick  instead  of  stone.  Etruscans  likewise 
employed  it  for  gateways  through  their  city- 
walls,  as  well  as  for  sewers,  though  it  does  not 
appear  in  their  sacred  Architecture,  in  their 
temples  of  the  Gods. 

It  was,  however,  the  Roman,  and  we  may 
rightly  say  the  imperial  Roman,  who  elevated  the 
Arch  to  the  highest  and  worthiest  position  in  his 
Architecture,  putting  it  into  his  noblest  secular 
and  relio^ious  buildings.  Doubtless  a  commence- 
ment  had  been  made  before  the  Empire,  but  the 
fulfillment  is  imperial.  We  may  conceive  the 
Emperor  Hadrian,  the  great  builder  among  Em- 
perors, lifting  the  long  barrel  Arch  of  the  Cloaca 
Maxima  from  its  hidden  despised  position  under- 
foot to  the  ceiling  of  his  great  temple  overhead, 

22 


338  ABC  HITEC  TUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

the  temple  of  Venus  and  Roma,  where  it  could 
be  seen  and  admired  by  the  civilized  world. 
Thus  the  lowly  but  well-performed  duty  of  the 
Arch  has  been  rewarded  by  an  exaltation  to  the 
highest  constructive  function,  and  it  has  never 
lost  the  position  assigned  to  it  by  the  imperial 
Roman. 

Here  we  must  again  remind  the  reader  that 
both  these  architectural  forms,  the  Column  with 
tie-beam  and  the  Arch,  have  the  one  great 
object:  to  make  an  entrance  or  passage  into  the 
enclosure  or  wall.  Each  does  this  in  its  own 
way :  the  one  we  may  call  the  limited,  the  other 
the  unlimited.  Thus  we  have  had  three  ways  or 
methods  of  getting  into  the  House  of  Associa- 
tion, which  is  primarily  the  Temple  of  the  Gods. 
First  and  simplest  is  the  door  with  three  beams  — 
two  vertical  with  the  horizontal  tie-beam  above, 
or  the  purely  trabeate.  Second  is  that  of  the  two 
vertical  Columns  (Greek)  with  the  horizontal 
tie-beam  above,  strictly  the  trabeate-columnar. 
Third  is  the  Arch,  in  which  the  vertical  and  the 
horizontal  members  unite  into  one  shape  which 
is  circular  —  the  arcuate  (Roman).  These 
three  forms  of  entrance — the  purely  trabeate, 
the  trabeate-columnar,  and  the  arcuate -7- we 
shall  lind  determining  profoundly  all  European 
Architecture,  whose  function  chiefly  is  to  open 
up  more  and  more  the  strict  enclosure  of  the 
exclusive  Orient  with  its  institutions  of  caste. 


BOMAN  IMPERIAL  PEBIOD.  339 

The  Arch  can  be  derived  from  Cohimn  and  tie- 
beam  (architrave)  by  conceiving  these  to  be  bent 
over  into  a  semi-circular  shape.  Constructively 
this  may  be  done  by  cutting  them  up  into  vredges 
of  a  proper  size,  and  then  putting  these  wedges 
together  into  the  arched  form.  The  main  char- 
acteristic of  the  simple  semi-circular  Arch  is  that 
it  has  a  center  of  its  own  as  distinct  from  the 
center  of  the  earth's  gravitation;  it  first  asserts 
itself  against  nature  even  if  it  afterwards  yields. 
Having  this  self-centered  power,  it  can  extend  or 
contract  itself,  making  a  wider  or  narrower  space 
underneath  itself  according  to  demand.  The 
Arch  has,  therefore,  a  flexibility  and,  we  may 
add,  an  internality  which  the  Greek  Norm  does 
not  possess.  A  great  or  a  small  stream  of  water 
or  of  people  can  flow  under  it  unobstructed. 
The  Greek  Column  is  now  its  own  tie-beam,  the 
latter  having  shrunk  to  the  key-stone,  which  is 
no  longer  horizontal  but  vertical  rather,  and  a 
voussoir  like  the  other  elements.  Who  cannot 
see  a  profound  evolution  in  this  movement,  a 
deepening  of  the  architectural  soul  of  the  ages, 
as  it  adopts  and  exalts  the  hitherto  buried  and 
perchance  despised  Arch? 

Still  we  are  not  to  say  that  the  Romans  in- 
vented the  Arch,  as  is  sometimes  done,  though 
they  were  the  first  people  who  realized  its  pos- 
sibilities. Frequently  the  credit  of  priority  in 
employing  the  Arch  is  given  to   the  Etruscans, 


340  ABCHITECTUBE—  EUBOPEAN. 

but  such  a  view  is  not  correct.  As  already 
stated,  the  Assyrians  and  the  Egyptians  used  it 
lonoj  before  the  foundinor  of  Eome.  Nobody 
can  tell  who  first  came  upon  the  Arch  ;  as  little 
can  the  origin  of  the  Column  be  pointed  out 
with  exactitude.  Both  were  in  a  long  process 
of  evolution  before  a  nation  or  an  age  seized 
upon  them  as  its  supreme  architectural  expres- 
sion, as  its  constructive  symbol.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  both  Column  and  Arch  had  to  wait  a 
good  while  for  Greece  and  Eome  respectively. 
Till  they  were  made  over  into  the  structural 
utterance  of  an  institutional  world,  they  lived  an 
uncertain,  obscure,  accidental  life,  even  though 
they  were  known  and  employed  upon  occasions. 
An  individual  man  may  have  discovered  the  Arch 
and  used  it  for  his  purpose,  but  associated  Man 
alone  can  give  to  it  worth  and  validity.  The 
origin  we  no  longer  seek,  but  the  evolution;  the 
one  runs  backward  into  darkness,  the  other  runs 
forward  into  light.  The  world-soul  of  Archi- 
tecture seems  to  call  up  a  constructive  form 
hitherto  lying  implicit  and  perhaps  despised  in 
the  spiritual  abysses  of  nations,  and  to  make  it 
the  pervading  architectonic  event  of  an  epoch. 
So  we  look  back  at  these  shapes  and  attempt  to 
order  them  according  to  their  evolutionary  suc- 
cession. The  Arch  may  have  been  found  before 
the  Column,  but  as  expressing  the  institutional 
development  of  the  race,  the  Column  is  before  the 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PEBIOD.  341 

Arch,    the  one   belonging   in   its    supremacy  to 
Greece,  the  other  to  Eome. 

We  observe  the  same  principle  in  other  things. 
Gunpowder  and  printing  were  invented  and 
used  in  China  long  before  they  were  known  in 
Europe.  But  how  different  the  fate  of  these  in- 
ventions in  the  East  and  in  the  West?  So  much 
can  be  at  least  said:  the  Chinese  institution,  so- 
cial and  political,  did  not  adopt  them  and  make 
them  an  integral  part  of  itself,  as  did  the  Euro- 
pean. 

It  is  a  curious  fact  recorded  by  Ferguson  that 
the  Oriental  builders  of  to-day  do  not  like  the 
Arch,  though  they  know  of  it  and  sometimes 
employ  it.  A  Hindoo  architect  declares  his  sus- 
picion of  it  in  the  saying,  "  an  Arch  never 
sleeps;"  it  is  always  pushing  outwards  and 
spreading  asunder.  It  is  indeed  dangerous  unless 
it  be  mastered,  having  that  second  center,  which 
is  counter  to  nature.  Far  more  certain  is  it 
to  build  layer  upon  layer  according  to  the  line  of 
gravitation.  So  the  Orient  seems  still  unpre- 
pared to  break  away  from  immediate  nature,  and 
to  take  in  hand  the  Arch  with  a  delight  in  its 
principle. 

It  has  been  noted  that  the  Arch  unites  the 
two  rectangular  elements  of  the  Greek  Norm, 
column  and  tie-beam,  into  the  circular  shape. 
Thus  the  Arch  is  governed  primarily  by  its  own 
law,  its  center,  and  hence  is  self -centered ;  but  it 


342  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

has  also  a  second  center,  that  of  the  earth,  and 
thus  is  also  externally  governed  by  the  law  of 
gravitation,  in  common  with  all  material  objects. 
This  twofoldness  we  shall  find  the  Arch  devel- 
oping in  the  course  of  its  history. 

The  relation  of  the  Arch  to  institutional  Rome 
should  be  traced.  It  is  made  up  of  many  mem- 
bers of  an  architectural  community,  each  of 
which,  while  driving  against  the  others  in  strong 
self-assertion  drives  toward  the  common  center 
from  which  all  are  determined.  Each  voussoir, 
laden  with  its  burden  thrusts  sidewards,  upwards, 
downwards  against  its  neighbors,  yet  they  all 
have  the  one  central  goal  to  which  they  point 
and  from  which  they  have  been  built  and  are 
controlled.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Rome  saw  in 
the  Arch,  doubtless  unconsciously  at  first,  an 
imasre  of  its  institutional  self  with  its  rim  of 
encircling  communities  ever  widening  out  over  the 
globe. 

Thus  the  mutual  antagonism  of  the  communal 
members  did  not  separate  and  isolate  them  as  in 
Greece,  whose  bane  was  that  each  little  town  as 
well  as  each  large  city  sought  to  be  an  independ- 
ent unit  wholly  to  itself,  without  any  central 
authority  to  unite  them.  Each  sought  to  be 
autonomous,  to  be  governed  by  its  own  law, 
instead  of  a  common  law  for  all,  which  Rome 
finally  elaborated.  The  fight  of  each  against  the 
other   in    distracted  Greece  was  transformed  by 


BO  MAN  IMPEEIAL  PEBIOD.  343 

Rome  into  a  common  struggle  for  the  central 
goal.  The  Greek  had  no  such  unity  in  his 
institutional  or  his  architectural  system ;  the  mem- 
bers lay  upon  one  another,  upbearing  and  up- 
borne as  column  and  architrave,  till  the  Roman 
came  and  smote  them  to  pieces,  and  then  re- 
built them  into  an  arched  totality.  Undoubtedly 
this  world-historical  deed  has  its  sorrowful  tragic 
side  for  beautiful  Hellas.  But  the  architectural 
spirit  of  the  Ages  is  not  very  sentimental,  it  seizes 
with  Titanic  might  the  drum  of  a  column,  per- 
chance belonging  to  some  fair  Parthenon, 
whittles  it  and  trims  it  into  a  wedge  and  thrusts 
into  a  Roman  Arch  for  upholding  the  world,  to 
which  burden  that  feeble  Greek  tie-beam  was 
wholly  inadequate .  A  new  soul  has  certainly  got- 
ten into  those  two  Columns  of  the  Hellenic 
Norm,  as  they  seem  to  lean  over  toward  each 
other,  and  interlock  in  a  new  shape,  the  key- 
stone, which  if  removed,  causes  the  whole  to  fall 
together.  But  the  architrave  or  the  capital  of  a 
Column  may  be  knocked  off  while  the  rest  stands, 
its  parts  not  being  internally  united.  In  fact 
if  any  voussoir  is  taken  away,  the  entire  Arch 
drops  to  the  ground;  the  whole  is  determined 
by  each  part,  which  in  its  turn  is  determined  by 
the  whole. 

From  these  considerations  one  may  infer  that 
the  Arch  is  the  constructive  semblance  or  symbol 
of  institutional  Rome.      An   intimate    congenial 


344  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

bond  the  Roman  must  have  felt  between  its  soul 
rrand  his  soul.  This  mutual  separation  and  oppo- 
sition of  members  unified  by  a  center  we  may 
read  in  the  landscape  of  Rome,  in  her  famous 
seven  hills,  crowding  and  fighting  against  one 
another,  till  they  are  united  in  the  common  val- 
ley between,  in  the  Forum  with  its  institutional 
order.  So  Rome  first  shows  its  ability  to  unite 
itself  and  its  hills  with  their  mutually  repellent 
tribes  and  communities ;  then  it  passes  to  unit- 
ing with  itself  the  Latin  cities,  then  the  Etrus- 
can, ever  widening  the  Arch  of  its  central  author- 
ity; then  all  Italy,  and  all  Greece,  and  finally  the 
whole  civilized  world  is  the  circumference  of  the 
Arch  drawn  from  the  central  city.  By  way 
of  contrast  and  comparison  it  may  be  remarked 
that  Athens  has  properly  but  one  hill,  the  Acrop- 
olis, from  which  it  for  a  while  ruled  an  Empire 
(the  Athenian),  but  without  much  success,  since 
it  had  not  the  Roman  power  of  associating  cities 
and  peoples  through  the  cement  of  the  law. 

The  Roman  trained  the  world  not  only  to  use 
but  to  love  the  Arch.  This  is  a  new  artistic  emo- 
tion which  neither  the  Greek  nor  the  Oriental 
seems  to  have  felt.  The  Arch  with  its  ever- 
widening  power  has  in  its  character  the  element 
of  romantic  Art,  and  passes  out  of  Rome  into 
the  Middle  Ages  in  a  new  architectural  career. 
Byzantine,  Romanesque  and    Gothic   retain  the 


ROMAN  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  345 

Arch  as  the  central  principle,  each  employing 
and  transforming  the  same  in  its  own  way. 

VIII.  From  what  has  been  said  it  becomes 
manifest  that  the  Arch  at  Kome  did  not  stand 
still,  but  went  through  a  very  important  evolu- 
tion of  its  own.  At  first  it  was  under  the  earth, 
or  at  least  under  its  heavy  superposed  burden. 
Then  it  rose  to  the  surface  of  the  earth,  being 
employed  specially  in  the  great  public  works  of 
Kome,  such  as  aqueducts,  roads,  bridges,  and 
also  being  used  for  openings  and  entrances  of  all 
kinds.  But  finally  it  rises  above  the  earth  and 
becomes  a  covering  for  interiors,  overroofing 
large  spaces  in  great  edifices,  which  thus  are 
better  adapted  than  any  preceding  structure  as 
an  enclosure  for  many  people.  In  general  Eome 
had  a  tendency  to  take  in  and  enclose  vast 
bodies  of  men :  witness  the  Colosseum  and  the 
Circus  Maximus.  Indeed  there  lay  in  her  im- 
perial character  the  aspiration  to  enclose  the 
world  in  a  political  edifice.  The  same  spirit  we 
may  trace  in  her  buildings  at  the  central  city. 

Thus  the  Arch  is  raised  overhead  to  be  a  cov- 
ering for  secular  structures  and  even  for  relio^- 
ious,  as  in  the  case  with  Hadrian's  temple  of 
Venus  et  Roma,  Such  a  prolonged  semi-circu- 
lar Arch  usually  goes  by  the  name  of  barrel  Arch 
or  Vault.  Now  comes  another  great  architec- 
ural  event :  two  barrel  Vaults  are  made  to  cross 
each  other  at  right  angles,  producing  the  cross 


346  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN, 

Vault  with  its  groining  or  ribs.  Particularly  in 
the  Baths  of  the  later  emperors  (Caracalla  and 
Diocletian)  must  these  cross  Vaults  have  been 
erected  with  great  skill.  It  is  not  known  when 
Rome  began  to  employ  this  device.  If  Palladio's 
drawings  be  correct,  the  Baths  of  Agrippa 
(20  B.  C.)  must  have  had  a  cross  Vault  of  an 
enormous  span.  But  the  accuracy  of  these 
drawings  has  been  suspected.  It  is  probable 
that  the  Roman  gradually  developed  into  the 
cross  Vault  with  its  peculiar  transverse  and  diag- 
onal ribs. 

The  question  rises :  Did  the  Roman  invent  it? 
Probably  not.  Archeologists  tell  us  of  a  tomb 
at  Pergamos  belonging  to  the  Second  Century 
B.  C,  which  shows  the  cross  Vault  made  of  stone 
voussoirs.  The  fact,  with  its  time  and  place, 
conducts  us  back  to  the  Hellenistic  Period  of 
the  Orient  when  Greek  architects  under  Alex- 
ander and  his  successors  began  to  employ  the 
Arch  and  to  unite  it  with  Greek  forms.  As 
already  stated,  the  Arch  and  barrel  Vault  had 
been  long  known  and  used  in  the  valleys  of  the 
Euphrates  and  Nile.  One  thinks  again  of  Alex- 
andria where  some  cunning  Greek  brain  may 
have  run  two  Egyptian  Vaults  across  each  other, 
and  have  produced  the  cross  Vault.  At  any  rate 
Rome  took  it  up  and  applied  it  on  a  magnificent 
scale  to  her  grand  edifices.  It  is  doubtless 
another   instance    of    Roman  concentration  and 


BOMAN  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  347 

readaptation  of  the  world's  architectural  forms. 
We  have  seen  that  Kome  did  not  invent  the 
Arch,  but  adopted  it  and  Romanized  it,  and  so 
made  it  universal.  In  like  manner  Rome  seem- 
ingly did  not  invent  the  cross  Vault  (as  some 
have  said),  but  adopted  it  and  Romanized  it, 
whereby  it  attained  its  great  architectural  signifi- 
cance, spreading  out  from  the  Roman  center  to 
the  provinces,  and  thence  passing  over  into  the 
Christian  world. 

Here  we  may  remark  that  it  is  the  cross 
Vault  which  renders  the  Christian  ecclesiastical 
structure  possible,  as  this  developed  during  the 
Middle  Ages.  The  crossing  of  the  nave  and 
transept,  which  may  be  regarded  as  the  heart 
of  the  Church,  was  transmitted  from  secular 
buildings  of  heathen  Rome,  apparently  from  the 
Baths  and  Basilicas.  Parallel  aisles  were  alone 
possible  if  the  ceiling  was  the,  barrel  Vault.  But 
with  the  cross  Vaults  the  cruciform  structure  has 
come  into  existence,  and  this  is  what  the  Chris- 
tian will  seize  upon  for  the  Home  of  his  Institu- 
tion. The  external  shape  suggests  the  cross  with 
all  its  precious  associations,  but  the  edifice  itself 
architecturally  becomes  more  concrete,  more 
organic,  we  may  say,  more  human.  Not  merely 
one  direction,  but  all  directions  it  embraces, 
reaching  out  for  all.  Thus  it  indicates  a  univers- 
ality which  no  previous  building  possesses. 

Moreover  at  this  point  the  Dome  must  struc- 


348  ARCHITECTURE  -  EUBOPE AN. 

turally  make  its  appearance.  The  Vault  running 
leno^thwise  intersects  with  the  Vault  runnings 
crosswise;  the  result  is  the  special  form  and 
direction  of  each' Vault  vanisl;  into  a  universal 
Vault  which  is  not  only  arched  but  rounded. 
Such  is  the  new  concentration;  the  rectilineal 
Vaults  coming  from  each  quarter  fuse  into  the 
curvilineal,  which  is  the  Dome.  Hence  over  the 
cross  Vault  the  Dome  will  show  itself  by  a  nat- 
ural evolution,  though  it  had  been  previously 
seen  in  other  situations. 

Another  weighty  fact  is  to  be  mentioned  at 
this  point.  The  cross  Vault  cannot  be  sup- 
ported by  a  wall,  which  would  obstruct  the 
passages  underneath.  Hence  it  calls  for  the 
support  of  the  Column  under  each  of  its  four 
feet.  Note  well  the  situation :  the  Arch  having 
developed  into  the  cross  Vault,  calls  for  the 
Column,  cannot  dp  without  it  in  fact.  Very 
different  was  the  former  relation  of  the  Column 
when  it  was  merely  decorative.  Now  it  has  be- 
come integral,  organic,  indispensable.  It  has 
passed  from  being  an  ornamental  member  of  the 
architectural  whole  to  an  equal  constructive  par- 
ticipation. 

The  reconciliation  and  intermarriage  of  Greek 
and  Koman  spirit  is  found  in  all  the  art,  science 
and  philosophy  of  later  imperial  Rome.  The 
renewed  Hellenic  world,  made  young  and  creative 
again  by  Christianity,  will  separate  from  Rome 


ROMAN  IMPERIAL  PEBIOD.  349 

politically  and  have  its  own  Empire.  In  fact  it 
will  conquer  Rome  in  turn,  and  .erect  in  the 
Roman  Forum  its  own  triumphant  symbol.  All 
this  will  be  likewise  expressed  architecturally. 

IX.  While  we  emphasize  this  coming  together 
of  Arch  and  Column  and  their  monumental 
reconciliation,  we  are  not  to  forget  that  there 
was  taking  place  at  the  same  time  the  complete 
separation  and  monumental  independence  of  Arch 
and  Column.  The  fact  is  decisively  indicated 
both  at  Rome  and  throughout  the  Roman 
Empire  by  the  existence  of  the  so-called  Tri- 
umphal Arches  and  Columns,  erected  generally 
in  honor  of  some  victory  and  its  general.  They 
stand  alone,  their  purpose  is  not  to  support  the 
burden  of  some  structure,  their  utility  is  set 
aside,  they  are  now  an  end  unto  themselves. 
Hence  we  may  call  them  artistic  symbols,  which 
have  to  be  taken  on  their  own  account^  and 
regarded  for  what  they  mean  in  and  of  them- 
selves. 

(a)  The  Triumphal  Arch  reaches  back  into 
Roman  History  long  before  the  Empire,  though 
none  of  these  earlier  monuments  seem  to  exist. 
Such  a  form  belongs  to  Rome  who  first  adopted 
and  elevated  the  Arch  into  a  national  construc- 
tive principle.  When  taken  by  itself  and  erected 
for  its  own  sake,  to  be  looked  at  by  the  people,  it 
becomes  a  work  of  Art  whose  object  is  to  bring 
the  nation  to  see  itself,  to  be  made  conscious  of 


350  AUCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

character  and  destiny  by  contemplating  the  sug- 
gestive token  of  nationality.  Still  further  the 
ornament  sculptured  upon  the  Arch  must  indi- 
cate its  triumph. 

Let  us  inspect  the  Arch  of  Titus,  the  earliest 
complete  monument  of  this  sort  at  Kome.  It  is 
a  single  semi-circular  Arch  with  coffered  ceiling, 
.erected  to  commemorate  the  capture  of  Jerusalem 
by  Titus  in  70  A.  D.  The  solid  mass  of  masotiry 
is  decorated  with  Column  and  Entablature  which 
have  no  constructive  purpose,  since  the  body  of 
the  work  is  for  building  the  Arch.  It  has  a 
relief  which  shows  the  spoils  taken  from  the 
temple  of  Jerusalem.  Supported  by  the  Arch 
was  a  platform  called  the  attic,  upon  which 
statues  were  placed,  illustrating  the  victor  and 
victory.  It  is  evident  that  we  here  see  Greek 
Art,  both  Sculpture  and  Architecture,  employed 
to  decorate  the  Eoman  Triumphal  Arch,  and 
therewith  to  express  its  significance. 

The  Arch  of  Constantine  which  is  also  at  Eome, 
is  more  elaborate  than  that  of  Titus,  having  a 
central  Arch  with  two  smaller  lateral  Arches. 
It  was  built  of  materials  taken  from  an  Arch  of 
Trajan  erected  some  two  hundred  years  pre- 
viously. Not  simply  is  it  an  imitation  but  a 
direct  plagiarism,  since  it  employs  reliefs 
representing  Trajan's  conquest  of  the  Dacians 
to  celebrate  Constantine's  conquest  of  Maxentius. 
In    more  senses   than  one    Constantine   may  be 


BOM  AN  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  351 

said  to  have  undone  the  work  of  Trajan,  who 
extended  the  Roman  Empire  to  its  farthest 
boundary,  and  centralized  it  in  the  City  of 
Rome.  But  Constantine  moves  the  Capital  to 
an  Eastern  city,  Constantinople,  and  thus  com- 
pletes the  decentralizing  movement  away  from 
Rome. 

Throughout  the  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, these  Triumphal  Arches  were  erected,  and 
many  of  them  are  still  standing.  Especially 
during  what  we  may  call  her  centrifugal  period 
she  scattered  these  symbols  of  her  power  through 
all  her  domains. 

(6)  Alongside  of  the  Triumphal  Arch  we  be- 
hold still  erect  at  Rome  the  Triumphal  Column. 
Thus  to  each  of  these  architectural  forms  a  dis- 
tinct and  independent  validity  is  given ;  both  are 
acknowledged  even  in  their  separation.  At  what 
time  the  Roman  began  to  show  this  recognition 
of  the  Greek  Column  cannot  now  be  told ;  the 
probability  is,  however,  that  he  grew  into  it 
with  advancing  culture  as  he  grew  into  appreci- 
ation of  all  things  Grecian.  It  is  a  significant 
fact  that  Trajan,  whose  reign  makes  the  bridge 
from  the  first  to  the  second  century  A.  D.,  con- 
structed both  a  Triumphal  Arch  and  a  Triumphal 
Column,  apparently  with  equal  elaboration  and 
grandeur,  in  connection  with  his  Forum  and 
Basilica.  Thus  the  old  rivals,  Arch  and  Column, 
each  in  its  own  right  must  have    stood  not  far 


35'i  A  Z?  CHI  TECTUBE  —  EUR  OPE  A  N. 

apart,  both  showing  a  new  stage  of  development 
of  themselves  and  of  Rome. 

The  Column  of  Trajan,  still  in  place,  is  one  of 
the  most  interesting  monuments  of  imperial 
Eome.  It  is  about  115  feet  high,  including  the 
base.  A  scroll  of  reliefs  winds  around  the  shaft 
to  the  top  in  twenty-three  tiers  on  which  are 
sculptured  the  events  of  Trajan's  campaign 
against  the  Dacians. '  On  the  top  stood  the  Ein- 
peror's  colossal  statue  twenty  feet  high,  replaced 
in  1587  by  a  statue  of  St.  Peter.  Inside  the 
Column  a  staircase  of  l54  steps  hewn  out  of  the 
marble  drums  which  have  a  diameter  of  eleven 
feet  below  and  ten  at  the  capital,  leads  to  the  top. 
On  the  outside  a  procession  of  some  2500  figures 
is  seen  winding  upward  to  Trajan.  It  is  the 
Greek  Column  and  not  the  Roman  Arch  which  is 
now  decorated,  and  that  in  a  way  which  strongly 
suggests  its  upbearing  character.  The  concep- 
tion of  a  spiral  scroll  on  which  are  pictured  the 
heroic  deeds  of  the  Emperor  circling  skyward 
till  he  appears  personally  high  up  in  heaven  like 
a  God  (divus  Trajanus),  is  unique,  and  more 
Greek  and  Homeric,  more  ideal  than  a  corre- 
sponding position  low  down  on  the  back  of  a 
Triumphal  Arch.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  ideal- 
ist. Emperor  Marcus  Aurelius,  chose  Trajan's 
Column  for  his  triumphal  monument  which  also 
is  standing  to-day,  rising  up  in  the  most  fre- 
quented place  in  Rome  (Piazza  Colonna,  which 


ItOMAN  IMPEBtAL  PERIOD.  353 

takes  its  name  from  this  Column).  But  his 
statue  likewise  has  been  supplanted  in  Christian 
Eome  by  that  of  a  Saint  of  the  Church  (St. 
Paul),  whose  conquests  were  of  a  very  different 
sort. 

There  is  one  more  ancient  Column  standing  in 
Eome,  which  has  to  be  mentioned.  It  was 
erected  in  honor  of  Phocas,  the  usurping  ruler 
of  the  Byzantine  Empire,  when  Rome  was  gov- 
erned by  the  Exarch  from  Constantinople.  It  was 
crowned  with  a  gilded  statue  of  that  monarch. 
Thus  proud  Rome  no  longer  dominates  but  is  domi- 
nated, and  her  Triumphal  Column  represents  a 
triumph  over  her,  not  by  her.  It  is  said  to  have 
been  the  last  monument  set  up  in  the  old  Forum 
and  belongs  to  the  year  608  A.  D.  Thus  a 
Greek  Column  witnessed  the  subjection  of  the 
City  which  once  subjected  it,  and  became  the 
distinctive  mark  of  the  site  of  the  Forum  till 
the  present  century,  though  partially  buried  and 
unnamed.  Byron  saw  it  in  its  old  unexcavated 
condition,  and  called  it  the  ''  nameless  column 
with  a  buried  base." 

Such  may  be  deemed  the  last  ancient  develop- 
ment of  Column  and  Arch  at  Rome,  with  whose 
conflict  Roman  Architecture  opened.  The 
struggle  has  gone  through  many  phases  of  op- 
position, subjugation,  reconciliation,  until  final 
separation.  So  the  Greek  Empire  separated 
from  the  Roman   and  set  up  for  itself,  even  sub- 

23 


B54  AUC  HI  TEC  TUBE  — EUROPE  Aif. 

jugating  Rome  for  a  time  to  its  sway.  The  final 
act  of  Roman  architectural  antiquity  may  be 
taken  as  the  erection  of  the  Column  of  Phocas, 
the  foreign  Greek  ruler  who  placed  his  badge  of 
triumph  upon  the  very  heart  of  the  Eternal 
City. 

X.  The  Amphitheater  must  be  regarded  as  one 
of  the  typical  public  structures  of  Rome.  As  far 
as  we  can  now  tell,  it  was  of  Roman  origin,  and. 
reached  its  highest  significance  in  the  imperial 
period.  It  is  doubtless  derived  from  a  doubling 
of  the  Greek  Theater,  which  is  semi-circular, 
while  the  Amphitheater  is  round  or  rather  oval, 
which  form  connects  it  also  with  the  Circus, 
whose  race-course  is  rounded  at  the  ends.  The 
Greek  Theater  had,  however,  a  different  pur- 
pose: it  showed  inner  conflicts,  struggles  of  the 
soul,  collisions  in  the  ethical  world,  as  we  see  in 
Antigone,  Oedipus,  Prometheus.  But  the  Roman 
Amphitheater  exhibited  literal  conflicts  of  war, 
involving  bloodshed,  physical  pain  and  death. 
From  this  point  of  view  they  were  an  education 
in  brutality  and  the  whole  Roman  People  received 
such  training  from  the  public  purse.  All  nations 
were  to  be  subjected  and  no  emotions  of  pity  were 
to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  great  world-historical 
task  of  Rome.  Vce  viciis  might  be  the  inscrip- 
tion over  every  Amphitheater,  whose  function 
was  to  hold  up  to  Rome  a  picture  of  herself  as 
imperial  conqueror.     The  Greek  Drama  had  an 


nOMAN  IMPEttlAL  PEmOD.  355 

ideal  content  and  was  presented  in  the  Theater, 
but  the  Eoman  Drama  had  to  be  realistic  and 
was  given  in  the  Amphitheater.  No  feigned 
slaying  and  dying  on  a  stage  could  be  endured  by 
the  practical  Roman,  who  was  determined  to 
have  actual  slaughter  and  death  in  his  dramatic 
entertainment,  even  if  he  sometimes  condescends 
to  look  at  and  perchance  to  imitate  a  Greek  play. 

If  we  regard  the  construction  of  an  Amphi- 
theater, we  shall  find  it  eminently  suited  for  its 
purpose.  It  was  essentially  composed  of  three 
parts.  First  was  the  arena,  the  open  space  at 
the  center  where  the  combats  took  place,  which 
were  of  living  beings  capable  of  sensation  and 
emotion,  and  which  might  be  waged  between 
man  and  man  as  in  the  gladiatorial  contests,  or 
between  man  and  wild  beast,  or  simply  between 
wild  beasts.  Second  came  the  tiers  of  circular 
seats  facing  this  central  arena,  often  arranged  in 
radiating  wedges  from  outside  inwards.  Third 
was  the  external  wall,  the  Enclosure  with  its 
openings  and  their  architectural  order  and  deco- 
ration, suggestive  of  the  purpose  of  the  build- 
ing, and  possibly  hinting  remotely  what  was 
going  on  inside. 

The  largest  buildmg  of  ancient  Rome  is  still 
standing,  and  it  is  an  Amphitheater,  the  so-called 
Colosseum.  It  was  built  by  the  Flavian  Emperors 
(72-82  A.  D.),  and  thus  belongs  to  the  epoch  of 
Rome's  imperial  centralization.     Later  it  shared 


856  ARCBITEOTURE  —  EUROPEAN 

in  the  decentralizing  tendency  of  the  Empire; 
-the  result  is,  Amphitheaters  are  found  through- 
out the  Roman  provinces.  In  Italy  we  meet 
them  at  Verona  in  the  North,  at  Capua  and  Pom- 
peii in  the  South.  In  France  there  is  one  at 
Nimes,  in  Northern  Africa  one  at  El  Djem; 
at  Pergamos  in  Asia  Minor  aud  at  Trier  in  Ger- 
many are  to  be  seen  ruins  of  Roman  Amphi- 
theaters. The  dates  of  these  structures  are  in 
general  uncertain ;  but  there  is  little  doubt  that 
most  of  them  were  built  after  the  Colosseum  and 
in  imitation  of  it,  both  as  to  purpose  and  archi- 
tectural details.  Each  large  town  had  its  own 
Roman  life  and  showed  the  same  by  having  an 
Amphitheater  with  its  bloody  sport.  Thus  each 
is  becoming  a  Rome  in  itself,  an  independent 
center,  which  strongly  indicates  the  breaking-up 
of  the  Empire  through  its  own  inner  process. 
Rome  is  reproducing  herself  in  the  provinces 
both  architecturally  and  politically,  whereof  we 
see  a  sign  in  this  universal  dessemination  of  the 
Amphitheater.  It  is  no  wonder  that  the  later 
Emperors  take  the  seat  of  Empire  away  from 
Rome  and  locate  it  in  various  provincial  cities  — 
Milan,  Nicomedia  and  finally  in  Constantinople. 
Diocletian  would  no  longer  live  at  Rome,  but 
removed  and  rebuilt  the  palace  of  the  Caesars 
at  Spalato  in  Dalmatia.  Constantine,  seeing  the 
dissolution  of  the  Western  Empire,  went  to  the 
East  and  stayed  there,  reconstructing  and  con- 


ROMAN'  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  357 

centrating  in  new  forms  the  Roman  Empire  of 
Greece  and  the  Orient,  so  that  it  lasted  a  thou- 
sand years  longer  than  imperial  Rome  of  the 
West.  All  these  facts  have  their  reflection  in 
the  architectural  monuments  of  both  Empires. 

Going  back  to  the  Roman  Colosseum  we  ob- 
serve that  its  very  magnitude  impresses  the  be- 
holder with  the  vastness  and  power  of  imperial 
Rome.  It  seems  to  hold  the  whole  people  for 
witnessing  their  own  tremendous  conflict  on  the 
outlying  rim  of  civilization.  Estimates  differ 
much  in  regard  to  the  number  of  persons  the 
Colosseum  is  capable  of  holding :  one  says  40,000, 
another  87,000,  these  seem  to  be  the  extremes. 
At  any  rate  it  represents  a  vast  gathering  of  the 
people,  not  to  decide  questions  of  State  as  under 
the  Republic,  but  simply  to  look  at  themselves 
imperially.  The  former  might  of  the  People  is 
now  concentrated  in  one  man,  in  one  will,  and 
this  very  Colosseum  suggests  the  fact. 

When  we  come  to  the  external  Architecture 
shown  in  the  enclosing  wall,  we  find  it  very  sug- 
gestive. From  this  wall  the  three  Greek  Orders 
of  Architecture  look  out  at  us,  not  free  but  en- 
gaged, fixed  in  the  rock,  held  back  so  to  speak 
from  stepping  forth  into  their  native  independ- 
ance.  Lowest  is  the  Doric  Column  (here  trans- 
formed into  the  Tuscan)  ;  in  the  second  story  is 
the  Ionic,  in  the  third  the  Corinthian,  each  with 
its  entablature  runninor  around  the  entire  circuit 


358  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  E  VBOPEAN, 

of  the  structure.  But  mark!  the  openings  and 
^he  entrances  in  the  enclosure  are  all  arched ;  at 
least  such  is  the  case  in  the  original  Flavian 
building.  The  Roman  would  not  trust  the  Greek 
Architrave  for  upholding  that  enormous  living 
mass,  the  assembled  people;  was  he  not  right? 
He  took  for  use  his  own  Arch  which  would 
sustain  any  burden.  Eighty  of  these  arched 
entrances  are  in  the  bottom  tier  where  the  multi- 
tude could  pass  in  and  out  under  their  own 
architectural  form  in  safety. 

No  other  Roman  building  shows  so  mightily 
the  subservient  condition  of  Greek  Art  and 
Spirit  during  the  first  century  of  the  Empire. 
These  superposed  Orders  are  purely  decorative, 
having  no  constructive  purpose.  They  show  a 
neglected  appearance,  there  is  no  fineness  of 
workmanship  about  them,  such  as  we  see  in  the 
temples  of  Greece ;  even  the  material  does  not  suit 
them,  the  Column  presents  a  cold  and  cheerless 
look  in  that  dull  Roman  travertine,  compared  to  its 
happy  glistening  elegance  in  Pentelic  or  Parian 
marble .  Yet  what  a  display  of  prodigious  strength 
in  this  act  I  It  is  as  if  a  giant  had  picked  up  those 
pretty  Greek  toys,  and  placed  them  upon  one 
another,  at  the  same  time  fastening  them  into  his 
huge  stone  wall  to  prevent  them  from  tumbling 
over.  The  Roman  was  evidently  fond  of  this 
superposition  of  Greek  Orders,  as  it  flattered 
his  power  in  comparison  with  that  of  the  Greek 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  359 

who  never  could  or  would  do  that.  We  see  it 
already  applied  in  the  Theater  of  Marcellus  (20 
B.  C).  Thus  the  Colosseum  reduced  the  Greek 
Column  to  a  mere  show  alongside  the  Eoman 
Arch,  though  this  show  may  be  deemed  a  kind 
of  interpretation,  certainly  not  very  brilliant  in 
the  present  case. 

There  is  a  fourth  story  to  the  Colosseum  which 
is  quite  different  in  character,  having  rect- 
angular openings  and  a  peristyle  encircling  the 
whole  structure  inside.  There  seems  to  be  no 
Arch  connected  with  it  outside  or  inside.  It 
was  erected  some  150  years  after  the  construc- 
tion of  the  first  three  storys  and  indicates  the 
reaction  toward  the  Greek  world,  which  was 
then  felt  in  Rome,  and  which  in  less  than  a  hun- 
dred years  later  showed  its  power  in  the  estab- 
lishment of  the  new  Greek  Empire  of  the  East. 
XI.  The  Pantheon  must  be  considered  the 
greatest  architectural  product  of  imperial  Rome. 
It  is  on  the  whole  the  most  original  building  the 
Roman  ever  constructed.  The  dome  appears 
now  in  all  fullness  and  glory,  as  a  distinct  sep- 
arate structure.  It  was  known  long  before  the 
appearance  of  the  Pantheon,  but  never  ade- 
quately realized.  The  single,  circular  opening 
at  the  top,  27  feet  in  diameter,  lights  the  inte- 
rior, suggesting  the  great  round  eye  of  the  Sun 
which  illumines  the  Dome  of  Heaven.  In  fact 
the   overwhelming  impression  of  the    Pantheon 


360  AB  CHITE  0  TUBE  t- EUB  OPE  AN, 

springs  from  its  similarity  to  the  visible  universe 
1)efore  us  by  day  and  by  night.    Man  here  seems 
to  build  in  direct  imitation  of  the  Divine  Archi- 
tect constructing  the  Cosmos.     The  Pantheon  is 
likewise  the  most  genetic  building  in  Rome ;  the 
two    greatest    churches    of     Christendom,    St. 
Sophia's  and  St.  Peter's,  are  its  mighty  progeny. 
It  is  now  known  that  the  edifice,  as  it  stands 
to-day,  is  a  work  of  Hadrian's  time  (about  123 
A.  D.),  though  its  first  construction  belongs  to 
the  beginning  of  the  Empire.     A  few  years  ago 
(in  1892),  M.  Chedanne  who  was  engaged  in  re- 
storing the  edifice,  made  some  important  investi- 
gations  which    overthrew   all   former   views  in 
regard  to  its  date.     He  found  that  the  bricks  in 
the  walls  belonged  to    the  age  of  Hadrian,  and 
that  the  whole  round  portion  was  constructed  by 
that   Emperor    on   an  entirely  new   plan.     The 
original  temple  was  built  after  the  Etruscan  pat- 
tern, nearly  square,  having  three  Cellas  with  a 
portico   in  front,  which  is  the   present  portico 
rebuilt  and  somewhat  altered.     It  was  Hadrian, 
then,  who  changed  the  rectilineal  temple  into  the 
circular,  doubtless  with  a  conscious  purpose  and 
in  accord  with  the  spirit  of  the  time.     Moreover, 
the  merits  of   pozzolana,  of  which  the  Dome  is 
constructed,  had  come  to  be  known  in  Hadrian's 
time.     But  certain  marks  stamped  on  the  brick 
of  the  temple  tell  the  date  of  their  origin  without 
mistake  to  the  antiquarian. 


BOMAN  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  36 1 

The  Pantheon  is  the  best  preserved  ancient 
edifice  in  Eome,  and  is  doubtless  the  most  sig- 
nificant. It  is  a  peculiar  structure  and  calls  up 
numerous  interrogations.  The  first  fact  about 
it  is  its  striking  doubleness,  being  composed  of  a 
colonnaded  portico  and  a  round  building.  The 
two  are  completely  distinct,  the  whole  is  essen- 
tially a  front  of  Greek  columns  clapped  on  to  a 
Latin  temple.  One  asks,  why  this  dualism, 
probably  unintended  by  the  builder,  but  never- 
theless very  real,  and,  as  we  believe,  very  sig- 
nificant? Certainly  here  are  two  architectural 
elements,  the  Greek  and  the  Latin,  placed  in 
juxtaposition  if  not  in  harmony ;  at  least  they 
are  not  intergrown  into  anything  like  an  organic 
unity.  The  primal  utterance,  then,  of  this 
building  is  that  Hellas  and  Rome  have  indeed 
been  brought  together,  but  as  yet  externally,  by 
force.  The  Hellenistic  separation  still  remains 
in  the  two  portions  conjoined  from  the  outside. 

The  first  conception  and  construction  of  the 
edifice  goes  back  to  the  earlier  years  of  the  reign 
of  Augustus,  whose  son-in-law  Agrippa  is  named 
as  builder  in  the  inscription  on  the  architrave. 
Its  date  is  usually  given  as  26-7  B.  C.  Thus 
it  falls  into  the  epoch  of  the  transition  from 
republican  to  imperial,  from  ethnic  to  universal 
Rome,  and  it  has  elements  of  both  sides  of  this 
transition.  Such  is  the  first  conception,  which 
is  150  years  before  that  of  Hadrian. 


362  ARGHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

The  next  point  to  be  observed  is  the  strong, 
the  overwhelming  emphasis  placed  upon  the 
Latin  element.  This  is  represented  in  the  round 
temple  which  is  altogether  the  largest,  the  high- 
est, truly  the  all-embracing  portion.  That  Latin 
Eome  has  conquered  the  world,  and  insists  upon 
its  supremacy,  is  the  mighty  self-assertion  which 
speaks  out  of  this  building.  It  seems  to  have 
been  originally  dedicated  to  the  supreme  Latin 
God,  Jupiter  Ultor,  the  divine  Avenger  of 
Rome  against  all  nations  which  limit  its 
power  or  assail  its  authority  This  breathes 
still  the  old  spirit  of  the  Latin  conqueror. 
It  was  a  later  consciousness,  less  ethnic  and 
more  universal,  which  baptized  this  structure 
afresh  with  the  name  of  Pantheon,  and  meant 
thereby  to  include  all  the  Gods  and  all  religions, 
not  merely  the  Latin.  Still  the  old  Latin  form 
remained  and  speaks  its  architectural  language  to 
this  day. 

Another  fact  should  be  brought  out  in  the  pres- 
ent connection.  This  front  is  indeed  made  up  of 
Greek  forms,  of  Corinthian  columns  with  entab- 
lature. Still,  as  a  whole,  taken  by  itself,  it  is 
not  so  much  Greek  as  Etruscan.  There  is  no 
peristyle  to  this  round  temple;  the  walls,  form- 
ing the  cylindrical  drum  upon  which  the  dome 
rests,  are  not  caressingly  embraced  in  a  round 
row  of  columns,  as  we  see  in  the  temples  of 
Ve^ta,  but  tell  directly,  if  not  rudely,  their  story 


BOM  AN  IMPEBIAL  PEBIOD.  363 

in  Koman  brick.  The  entrance  with  its  ancient 
flight  of  steps,  was  essentially  that  of  an  Etruscan 
temple,  which,  however,  had  a  rectilineal 
shape,  not  curvilineal  as  here.  It  is  stated  that 
the  Pantheon  originally  was  constructed  by  a 
Eoman  architect  (not  by  a  Greek),  Valerius 
of  Ostia. 

Thus  we  may  see  in  this  edifice  the  primordial 
ethnic  elements  of  Kome  —  Latin,  Etruscan, 
Greek.  Moreover  the  last  two  are  built  in  de- 
cided subordination  to  the  former,  and  they  de- 
clare with  historic  truth  that  they  are  but  the 
preparatory  entrance  which  leads  the  way  to  the 
great  Koman  temple.  The  struggle  is  still  present 
though  smothered  and  subdued  by  a  mighty 
world-ruling  will.  The  Hellenistic  conflict  of  the 
architectural  forms  of  Nations  is  still  visible, 
though  put  down  externally.  Will  the  Empire 
have  the  ability  to  heal  these  deep  scissions  of 
peoples  and  make  its  and  their  institutions  over 
into  an  organic  whole?  If  it  can,  then  Archi- 
tecture will  follow,  erecting  a  corresponding 
structure.  It  is  instructive,  however,  to  look  back 
from  the  Pantheon  to  the  Parthenon,  both  of 
them  typical  buildings  for  the  indwelling  of  the 
spirit  of  their  respective  epochs. 

If  we  now  inspect  specially  the  Latin  part  of 
the  Pantheon,  the  round  temple,  we  find  it  also 
strikingly  dual,  being  composed  of  two  portions, 
the  circular  prostrate  drum  and  the  over-arching 


364  ABCHITECTUBE  ^  EUBOPEAN. 

dome.  The  curvilineal  has  indeed  met  and  con- 
quered in  this  structure  the  rectilineal ;  but  now 
the  latter  seems  to  divide  within  itself  into  a 
downward  and  upward  tendency,  into  a  sup- 
porting and  a  supported  element.  That  double 
character,  which  we  noted  in  the  Greek  temple 
as  the  supporting  column  and  the  supported 
entablature,  has  here  assumed  its  definite  Koman 
shape.  The  original  round  temple  of  the  Latins 
had  an  unobtrusive  circular  roof,  but  that  roof 
has  now  been  elevated  into  the  Dome,  still  to- 
day the  most  imposing  form  of  ancient  and 
modern  Roman  Architecture,  being  seen  in  all 
prominence  upon  two  of  its  most  characteristic 
and  colossal  edifices,  the  Pantheon  and  St. 
Peter's. 

Jupiter,  the  Supreme  Latin  God,  could  have 
and  apparently  did  have  at  Eome,  all  three  kinds 
of  temples,  the  round  (Latin),  the  square 
(Etruscan),  and  the  oblong  peristylar  (Greek). 
His  primordial  temple,  however,  must  have  been 
round,  having  its  source  in  Latium.  Vesta,  the 
old  Italic  Goddess  of  the  family  hearth,  had  so 
consecrated  the  curvilinear  shape  that  it  seems 
to  have  remained  throughout  the  imperial  epoch 
and  perpetuated  itself  into  the  Christian  age, 
which  has  the  round  church  also.  We  may  con- 
sider the  Pantheon  an  enlarged  temple  of  Vesta, 
which  goes  back  and  asserts  the  original  Latin 
shape,    rejecting    purposely  the  Peristyle  which 


jROMAir  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  365 

Was  Greek,  and  thus  indicating  a  kind  of  nativis- 
tic  reaction  against  foreign  influences,  both  Greek 
and  Etruscan.  In  this  way  the  Latin  temple 
universalizes  itself,  as  did  the  Latin  language  and 
the  Latin  law.  The  Pantheon  architecturally 
proclaims  Latin  imperialism  at  the  height  of  the 
Latin  Empire.  The  Latin  City-State  on  the 
Tiber  having  made  itself  universal  in  political 
supremacy  utters  the  fact  constructively  in  this 
building. 

The  name  of  Jupiter  has  still  in  it  a  strong 
echo  of  the  family  (Zeu  pater,  father  Zeus, 
Homer's  father  of  men  and  of  Gods).  Herein 
we  may  find  the  ground  for  the  analogy  between 
Jupiter's  and  Vesta's  temples  as  to  their  common 
primitive  shape,  though  their  size  would  be  dif- 
ferent. The  Empire  brought  back  the  idea  of 
paternal  government  and  extended  it  over  the 
whole  world,  after  it  had  been  obscured  by  the 
Greek  and  Etruscan  constructive  shapes,  both  of 
which  the  Pantheon,  as  before  stated,  reduces  to 
a  portico  or  entrance  to  the  main  structure. 
Possibly  that  ever-open  eye  of  the  Pantheon 
suggests  the  paternal  eye  of  Zeus  primarily  and 
then  of  the  Empire  in  their  sleepless  vigil  over 
the  world. 

With  justice  the  Pantheon  has  been  generally 
considered  as  a  mighty  manifestation  of  the 
Roman  Empire.  But  here  we  may  note  that  it 
still  rests  on  the  ground,  in  immediate  contact 


^66  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

with  the  earth.  What  will  it  mean  when  lifted 
up  and  placed  on  top  of  another  structure,  a 
church?  This  was  what  was  done  with  it  some 
four  centuries  later  at  Constantinople  (532-7, 
A.  D.),  when  St.  Sophia's  was  built.  .  After  an 
additional  thousand  years  Michael  Angelo  the 
giant  openly  declared  it  to  be  his  design  to  pick 
up  and  superpose  the  Pantheon  on  new  St. 
Peter's,  of  which  he  was  at  one  time  the  archi- 
tect. Thence  the  Dome  has  traveled  to  the 
western  world,  where  a  secular  edifice  has  em- 
ployed it,  the  Capitol  at  Washington.  In  such 
fashion  we  bring  before  ourselves  the  evolution 
of  the  Pantheon,  or  even  of  its  ancestor,  the  little 
round  temple  of  Latium,  which  has  had  a  most 
remarkable  development,  landing  at  last  upon  the 
chief  edifice  of  a  new  kind  of  Empire  on  a  new 
continent. 

There  is  another  thought  which  comes  up  in 
the  present  connection.  The  Dome  of  the 
Pantheon  is  directly  structural,  being  necessarily 
involved  in  the  size  and  shape  of  the  building. 
But  the  D©me  of  St.  Peter's  is  only  remotely 
structural,  it  is  not  involved  in  the  size  and  shape 
of  the  building,  rather  is  it  an  interruption  if  not 
a  contradiction  of  the  church  taken  by  itself  with 
its  rectilineal  outline.  The  building  would  per- 
form its  purpose  quite  as  well  without  the  Dome. 
We  have  to  infer  that  the  latter  is  essentially 
for  ornament,  for  expression.     Thus  what  was 


nOMAN  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  367 

structural  in  ancient  Kome  is  ornamental  in  mod- 
ern Eome.  Already  it  has  been  noted  that  the 
organically  constructive  forms  of  one  nation  and 
age  are  taken  up  by  another  and  made  a  decora- 
tion or  an  expression.  So  Rome  treated  Greece, 
in  fact  the  Pantheon  so  treats  the  Greek  column 
and  colonnade.  But  the  (christian  edifice  requites 
the  act,  and  does  to  the  Pantheon  what  the  latter 
did  to  the  colonnaded  row  of  the  Parthenon  — 
reduced  it  to  an  ornament,  or  better,  made  it  a 
form  of  architectural  expression  purely. 

If  a  level  roof  were  put  upon  the  Pantheon 
whether  flat  or  sloping,  it  would  contradict  the 
rotundity  of  the  whole,  and  introduce  a  decided 
discord.  The  edifice  now  has  simplicity  as  well 
as  grandeur.  The  portico,  as  already  indicated, 
remains  really  outside  of  the  temple  proper. 
But  when  the  curvilineal  Dome  is  placed  upon 
the  rectilineal  body,  as  in  St.  Peter's,  the  ancient 
simplicity  of  the  Pantheon  is  broken  up,  and  a 
new  institutional  spirit  is  expressed. 

And  yet  the  Pantheon,  when  it  first  arose, 
probably  excited  questioning  and  even  opposition 
at  Rome.  It  defied  the  accepted  norms  of  the 
temple,  both  Greek  and  Etruscan,  and  set  up  a 
new  standard  even  if  its  rotundity  connected  it 
with  the  old-Latin  form.  But  the  Pantheon  and 
its  greatest  offspring  we  now  see  to  be  only 
stages  in  the  total  architectural  evolution  of 
Europe. 


368  ABCHITECTVBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

XII.  The  religious  Architecture  of  imperial 
Rome  in  general  had  something  unsettled  about 
it  to  the  last.  It  might  be  old-Latin,  Etruscan, 
or  Greek,  or  a  combination  of  these  norms.  It 
might  be  round,  square,  or  oblong.  The  temple 
of  Jupiter  was  built  at  various  times  and  places 
in  all  three  ways.  The  founders  of  the  Empire 
had  been  shaken  in  their  old  Roman  faith ;  the 
unsettling  of  their  religious  views  shows  itself  in 
their  religious  Architecture  which  became  as 
eclectic  as  the  Roman  religion.  The  truth  is 
Rome's  function  lay  not  in  the  development  of 
the  inner  life  but  of  the  outer.  It  adopted  its 
Philosophj  and  Art  from  the  Greeks  along  with 
their  later  skepticism.  Somebody  has  estimated 
that  Rome  had  30,000  Gods  and  Goddesses  dur- 
ing its  imperial  Period,  and  each  was  allowed  its 
own  peculiar  home  except  the  Christian  deity. 

It  was  the  secular  life  of  man  which  Rome  de- 
veloped with  a  success  that  makes  her  attainment 
therein  a  stage  of  the  World's  History.  Political 
and  military  Organization,  Jurisprudence,  Busi- 
ness, the  State  and  the  Social  Order  were  her 
great  and  original  fields  of  enterprise.  Accord- 
ingly the  secular  Architecture  of  Rome,  reflect- 
ing as  it  must  this  spirit  of  hers,  has  been 
epoch-making,  and  is  to-day  as  deeply  impressed 
upon  Europe  as  is  the  Roman  Law.  She  has 
constructed  the  homes  of  our  secular  institutional 
world ;  she  has  transmitted  the  types  of  what  we 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  369 

call  Public  Buildings.  Thus  she  developed  a 
function  of  Architecture,  which  undoubtedly  the 
Greek  had  begun,  namely,  to  build  the  abodes  of 
secular  Institutions.  Before  her  time  all  great 
construction  had  been  in  the  main  religious. 
But  Kome  secularizes  Architecture,  transforming 
it  from  its  original  religious  cast  and  purpose. 
This  peculiar  transmutation  is  undoubtedly  the 
chief  interest  of  imperial  Roman  building.  It 
may  be  said  that  the  present  excavation  of  Rome 
is  to  uncover  the  foundations  of  that  grand 
totality  of  secular  structures  which  group  them- 
selves around  the  Forum,  which  in  a  measure 
they  at  last  supplant. 

Of  these  secular  buildings  we  may  here  take  a 
brief  survey. 

1.  The  old  Roman  Forum  must  be  rsgarded 
as  the  center  of  expansion.  It  was'  the  seat  of 
deliberation  and  of  legislation.  The  people  as- 
sembled here  to  make  laws,  to  declare  war  and 
peace.  The  inner  struggles  and  the  outer  con- 
flicts of  republican  Rome  gather  around  the 
Forum.  But  when  the  Empire  comes,  the  im- 
portance of  the  Forum  wanes.  The  Roman 
People  and  the  Senate  are  no  longer  the  arbiters 
of  the  world's  destiny,  they  are  reduced  to  a 
form,  a  shell,  and  so  are  their  homes,  their  build- 
ings. Already  around  the  Forum  new  edifices 
are  clustering  which  manifest  the  new  spirit. 

2.  A  very  important  building  at  Rome  was  the 

24 


370  ABGHITECTUUE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

Basilica,  which  became  the  place  of  business  for 
the  world.  Also  the  judge  had  his  seat  in  it, 
and  hence  it  was  the  place  of  justice.  Such 
were  the  two  main  purposes  of  the  Basilica, 
Business  and  Justice;  it  was  a  Bourse  and  a 
Court-house.  The  Business  of  the  world  called 
forth  the  Koman  Law  of  Contracts,  which  was 
enforced  in  the  same  place  where  the  contract 
was  made.  This  immediate  presence  of  Justice 
looking  down  from  her  seat  in  the  so-called  apse 
upon  men  in  their  business  relations  is  significant 
of  the  time  and  of  the  city.  The  socio-economic 
world  has  arisen  at  Kome,  and  the  Basilica  is 
erected  as  its  house  guarded  by  Justice.  That 
guardianship  is  still  bitterly  necessary,  though 
Justice  has  now  her  own  separate  building. 

When  we  regard  the  constructive  form  of  the 
Basilica,  we  soon  observe  it  to  be  a  secularized 
Greek  temple.  This  secularization  took  place 
by  retaining  the  outer  Peristyle  and  by  removing 
the  inner  Cella  which  was  the  religious  portion. 
The  place  of  worship  was  taken  away,  even  if 
an  altar  remained,  and  even  if  there  was  a  God 
of  Commerce.  Moreover  the  plan  was  oblong 
like  that  of  the  Greek  temple.  Instead  of  the 
Cella  was' substituted  the  free  Colonnade  which 
allowed  easy  intercourse  of  man  with  man.  The 
constructive  result  was  an  inner  enclosure  with 
two  side  aisles  and  a  central  space  (nave)  which 
in  later  times  was  covered.     At  the  extreme  end 


BOMAN  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  371 

was  the  tribuna  (apse)  or  seat  of  the  judge,  with 
other  officials.  Such  was  the  original  simple 
form  of  the  Basilica,  of  which  a  good  instance 
can  be  seen  at  Pompeii.  But  this  simple  form 
is  destined  to  undergo  a  considerable  evolution. 
The  Greek  had  already  made  the  transition 
from  the  Temple  to  the  Basilica,  which  is  a 
Greek  word.  The  first  Basilica  at  Eome  is  re- 
ported to  have  been  built  by  the  elder  Cato  in 
184  B.  C,  doubtless  after  a  Greek  model  which 
was  easy  to  be  seen  in  Southern  Italy.  Then 
arose  a  great  number  of  Basilicas  required  for  the 
increasing  business  of  the  ever-conquering  city. 
Julius  Caesar  began  to  build  the  immense  Basilica 
Julia,  truly  typical  of  his  vast  ideas  of  Empire, 
but  he  did  not  live  to  see  its  completion,  which 
took  place  some  years  after  his  death.  Then 
came  the  famous  Basilica  Ulpiaof  Trajan,  highly 
finished  with  colored  marbles  and  granite,  and 
profusely  decorated  with  works  of  Art.  Im- 
perial Rome  is  now  seen  ornamenting  herself 
with  the  fairest  spoils  of  the  world,  while  the 
earlier  Basilica  Julia  was  far  less  ornate,  though 
both  had  five  aisles  including  the  wide  central 
area.  The  last  Basilica  is  that  finished  by  Con- 
stantine,  a  portion  of  which  is  still  standing.  It 
shows  a  great  development  in  Roman  construc- 
tion :  that  of  the  cross  vault  of  the  central  aisle 
(nave)  supported  by  strong  pillars  for  counter- 
acting the    thrust   from   above.     That    is,    the 


372  ABC  HITEG  TUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

vaulting  and  groining  of  the  medieval  church 
are  seen  in  this  Basilica  of  Constantine,  which, 
however,  is  still  heathen  and  secular.  The 
thought  will  arise  that  the  edifice  images  Con- 
stantine himself,  who  is  soon  to  become  opeply 
a  Christian. 

The  next  stage  in  the  evolution  of  the  Basilica 
is  its  transformation  into  a  church.  The  tribu- 
nal of  Justice  is  changed  into  that  of  Mercy ;  the 
place  of  the  judiciary  is  taken  by  the  clergy ;  the 
business  of  this  world  is  to  vanish  into  the  busi- 
ness of  the  other  world.  Thus  Christianity  re- 
ligionizes Koman  secularity,  which  itself  sprang 
originally  from  the  old  religion.  Here  our  inter- 
est is  to  behold  an  edifice  metamorphosing  itself 
through  three  great  stages :  the  Greek  temple, 
the  Roman  Basilica,  and  the  Christian  Church  — 
each  corresponding  to  an  epoch  of  the  World's 
History. 

3.  A  peculiar  architectural  development  of 
imperial  Rome  is  the  erection  of  so  many  and 
such  immense  Baths  or  Thermae.  One  queries 
at  first :  Why  this  devotion  to  bathing  under  the 
Empire  specially?  When  we  look  into  the 
matter,  we  find  that  the  name  does  not  repre- 
sent the  thing,  that  much  else  was  going  on  in 
these  vast  edifices  besides  bathing,  which  prob- 
ably was  a  minor  object  with  many  if  not  the 
most  visitors.  The  Baths  were  in  one  sense  a 
place  of  entertainment  but  not  like  the  Amphi- 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PEBIOD.  373 

theater  or  the  Circus,  in  which  people  were  inact- 
ive spectators.  Here  each  person  was  an  active 
participant,  in  games  and  gymnastic  exercises 
as  well  as  in  conversation.  On  the  whole  we 
may  regard  the  Baths  as  places  of  individual  de- 
velopment for  body  and  mind,  a  kind  of  Eoman 
University.  There  could  be  little  public  life 
under  the  Empire,  men's  minds  began  to  turn 
inward  and  to  unfold  what  lay  there.  The 
Koman  People,  having  no  political  function  in 
the  foreign  or  domestic  affairs  of  the  city, 
such  as  they  were  once  wholly  occupied 
with,  betake  themselves  largely  to  amuse- 
ment in  their  leisure.  A  part,  probably  the 
larger  part,  go  to  the  rough  sports  of  the 
Colosseum  and  Circus,  but  another  part,  more 
bent  upon  self -development,  betake  themselves  to 
the  Baths.  Thus  we  see  that  Rome,  hitherto  .in 
the  republican  era  devoted  to  the  outer  life,  be- 
gins to  turn  inward  and  cultivate  the  self,  the 
spirit ;  at  least  a  large  element  of  its  population 
must  have  shown  this  tendency. 

What  could  be  found  at  the  Baths?  Of  course 
very  elaborate  apparatus  for  bathing.  And  there 
were  also  physical  exercises  —  athletics,  gymnas- 
tics, ball-games,  with  manifold  instruction  in 
these  matters.  But  we  find  here  a  library  with 
reading-room,  also  a  picture  gallery,  while  the 
apartments  were  everywhere  decorated  with 
statuary  and  paintings.     The  Baths  must  have 


374  ABCHITEGTURE  — EUROPEAN. 

been  great  centers  for  the  culture  and  enjoyment 
pf  the  Fine  Arts.  Lecture  halls  we  may  next 
note,  which  imply  lecturers  and  lecture  courses. 
Especially  Philosophers  gathered  at  the  Baths 
and  discoursed  to  their  followers  and  to 
whomsoever  might  listen.  Poets  read  their 
productions  and  sought  their  public  in 
these  frequented  halls.  New  ideas  first 
circulated  here,  heralded  by  their  authors, 
this  being  also  a  place  of  publication.  The  gos- 
sip of  a  great  city,  the  news  of  a  great  Empire 
could  be  heard  at  the  Baths,  which  have  been 
often  called  the  Eoman  newspaper.  Gardens  for 
promenading  and  for  conversation  were  a  part  of 
the  plan,  which  included  the  social  life  of  the 
modern  club.  All  kinds  of  societies  seem  to 
have  been  centralized  in  these  immense  edifices 
of  which  Rome  possessed  fifteen  in  the  time  of 
Constantine  who  added  one  more,  probably  the 
last  or  among  the  last.  It  seems  to  have  been 
the  policy  of  the  Emperors  to  give  this  outlet  to 
Roman  association,  deprived  as  it  was  of  its 
former  political  field.  Certainly  the  Baths  are 
essentially  a  product  of  the  Empire.  The  earliest 
structure  for  the  purpose  is  said  to  have  been 
built  by  Agrippa  (20  B.  C.)  in  connection  with 
the  first  Pantheon.  At  that  date  the  Empire 
had  already  begun  its  distinctive  career. 

In  regard  to  the  Architecture  of  these  edifices, 
it  can    be   judged   from   two   very   considerable 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PEBIOD.  375 

ruins  still  existing  at  Rome,  the  Baths  of  Cara- 
calla  and  of  Diocletian.  A  detailed  account  of 
their  construction  cannot  here  be  given.  One 
fact  only  we  shall  at  present  emphasize :  both 
these  buildings,  which  belong  to  the  third  century 
A .  D . ,  show  the  cross  vault  resting  on  piers  to  meet 
the  thrust.  In  fact  this  scheme  may  be  regarded 
as  the  central  one  of  both  these  edifices  with 
their  vast  agglomerate  of  rooms,  halls,  colon- 
nades, etc.  The  Bath  of  Diocletian  could  accom- 
modate 3200  bathers.  We  can  imagine  the  large 
crowds  loitering,  talking,  listening,  in  these  nu- 
merous, roomy,  elegant  apartments,  under  wide- 
extending  arches,  vaulted  ceilings,  cross  vaults 
and  even  domes. 

In  general  Roman  Architecture  has  become 
interior,  in  accord  with  the  movement  of  the 
spirit  of  the  time.  The  Thermae  represent  the 
inner  development  of  the  individual ;  the  varie- 
gated marbles,  the  peacock  columns  (pavonaz- 
zetto),  the  red  granite,  the  alabaster,  the  por- 
phyry, not  to  speak  of  statuary  and  painting, 
represent  the  diversified  play  of  the  inner  life, 
with  all  its  feelings,  thoughts,  images  turned 
back  upon  themselves,  the  people  being  largely 
shut  off  from  their  free  sphere  of  outward  activ- 
ity. Rome  with  its  Architecture  is  preparing 
for  the  great  coming  change. 

The  Roman  Baths  had  their  bad  side,  an  un- 
savory report  of  their    sensuality,    debauchery, 


376  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN, 

luxury  has  come  down  the  ages.  Still  under  this 
negative  element  the  positive  was  working ;  and 
so  we  repeat  that  the  imperial  Baths  of  Eome 
show  an  inner  development  of  the  individual,  a 
growing  interiority  of  the  spirit  as  well  as  of  its 
Architecture.  Some  of  the  highest  ethical  teach- 
ing that  the  world  has  seen  could  be  found  in 
the  Eoman  Baths.  The  finest  spirits  of  later 
Eome  cultivated  their  moral  natures  specially, 
having  little  or  no  religion  ;  the  imperial  era  may 
be  deemed  the  great  period  of  ethical  culture  in 
the  World's  History.  The  Stoics  and  the  Epi- 
cureans are  the  chief  schools,  each  of  them 
representing  the  two  diverging  tendencies  of  the 
time,  which  spiritually  tear  Eome  in  twain.  Still 
both  called  up  and  developed  the  inner  subjective 
side  of  man's  nature,  ^nd  the  same  turning  in- 
ward we  can  see  in  the  movement  of  Architec- 
ture, and  that  too  of  Architecture  which  is  not 
religious  but  secular. 

4.  Another  very  important  secular  work  of 
Eome  was  its  roads,  which  centered  primarily  in 
the  city  like  a  spider's  net.  But  in  time  each 
leading  town  had  its  system  of  roads  which  made 
it  too  a  center;  thus  Eome's  work  of  central- 
ization became  decentralizing.  The  Eoman  road 
is  still  well-known  in  Europe ;  the  traveler  will 
come  upon  it  in  remote  districts  which  now  have 
no  roads,  but  once  had,  in  the  Eoman  time. 
Aqueducts,    bridges,    canals,    the   Eoman    con- 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  %11 

structed  with  marvelous  stability  in  his  great 
task  of  associating  the  world  politically  and 
economically. 

The  private  dwellings  of  the  Romans  have 
quite  perished,  though  we  may  get  a  conception 
of  them  from  Pompeii.  Here  we  note  an  em- 
phatic interior  Architecture;  the  outside  is 
wretched,  we  may  say  forbidding;  it  tells 
nothing  of  the  life  inside.  The  Family  was  not 
yet  ready  to  appear  in  public.  Still  the  wealthy 
Roman  had  his  private  palace,  which  was  doubt- 
less derived  from  the  palace  of  the  Caesars,  even 
if  at  a  great  distance. 

The  Family  was  certainly  developing  internally 
at  Rome,  amid  all  the  license  of  a  great  city,  and 
in  spite  of  the  heavy  hand  of  the  Law,  which 
made  wife  and  child  the  slaves  of  the  husband. 
Even  the  Roman  Tomb  was  often  an  associa- 
tive building  with  its  Columbaria,  or  small 
niches  for  the  urns  of  the  ashes  of  the  dead.  It 
was  frequently  round  like  the  old-Latin  temple 
of  Vesta  and  also  of  Zeus,  and  thus  had  its  relig- 
ious suggestion.  An  instance  is  the  tomb  of 
Cecilia  Metella  on  the  Appian  Way  just  outside 
of  Rome.  The  colossal  tomb  of  Hadrian  was 
round,  and  since  recent  discoveries  it  will  be 
connected  in  thought  with  the  Pantheon,  which 
also  belongs  to  his  time  and  to  his  character. 

Such  is  a  brief  account  of  the  leading  secular 
buildings  of  imperial  Rome,  which   was  in  this 


378  ABC  HITEC  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

sphere  creative  of  the  norm  for  future  Architec- 
ture. The  Renascence  in  particular  will  revive 
these  structures,  will  build  them  up  anew  from 
their  ruins  and  pass  them  on  to  our  own  time. 
We  are  still  erecting  Roman  Public  Edifices  for 
housing  our  secular  life,  though  for  our  religion 
we  usually  select  anotlier  kind  of  building. 

XIII.  Allusion  has  been  frequently  made 
already  to  the  fact  that  Rome  had  her  period  of 
centralization  and  of  decentralization  in  her  Archi- 
tecture. Such  a  movement  lay  also  in  her  chief 
institution,  the  Empire,  whose  inner  process  must 
manifest  itself  in  her  constructive  Art.  For 
Architecture  builds  the  home  of  Institutions  and 
reflects  their  character  and  their  changes  in  its 
forms. 

The  Roman  Empire  is  the  unification  of  all 
peoples  under  one  law  and  into  one  political 
totality.  Art  must  follow  the  world  to  Rome, 
if  it  is  to  perform  its  function  of  revealing  the 
spirit  of  the  Age.  There  it  is  to  receive  its 
Roman  impress,  ere  it  move  on  in  its  evolution 
down  time.  Already  we  have  witnessed  a  similar 
concentration  at  Athens,  producing  in  our  present 
field  the  bloom  of  Hellenic  Architecture.  At 
Alexandria  there  must  have  been  a  corresponding 
movement  of  the  Hellenistic  Period,  whose  con- 
structive devices,  however,  were  largely  repro- 
duced in  the  later  Roman  edifices. 

Classic    Architecture  reaches    its  third   great 


BOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PEBIOD.  379 

epoch  in  imperial  Rome,  which  will  show  in  its 
own  limits  the  same  process  essentially  which  we 
noted  in  the  total  Classic  or  Greco-Roman  devel- 
opment. First  is  a  centripetal  movement,  then 
a  centrifugal,  when  finally  comes  the  blow  which 
destroys  from  the  outside  the  whole  Classic 
World  with  its  Architecture.  These  stages  we 
may  dwell  upon  a  little. 

A.  The  Centripetal  Movement. 

This  we  may  deem  to  have  begun  with  the 
Empire,  which  inherited  it  from  the  Republic, 
and  to  have  lasted  somewhat  more  than  a  hun- 
dred years.  During  the  reign  of  Trajan  Rome 
attained  its  greatest  extent.  Then  it  ceased  its 
outreaching,  limit-transcending  career,  and 
sought  to  maintain  and  solidify  what  it  had 
gotten .  Indeed  it  began  to  abandon  certain  out- 
lying conquests.  Such  a  change  of  policy  marks 
a  change  of  character;  it  acknowledges  tacitly 
that  Rome  cannot  be  the  universal  center  of  the 
nations.  At  the  same  time  inside  the  Empire  a 
separative,  tendency  begins,  and  shows  itself  in 
the  formation  of  new  centers.  Such  is,  indeed, 
the  dialectic  or  inner  self-annulment  of  all  cen- 
tralization, which  begets  itself  in  its  members 
and  thus  undoes  itself. 

Centripetalism  means  the  direct  and  emphatic 
domination  of  Rome.  If  we  look  at  the  buildings 
of  this  time  and  note  their  spirit,  we  find  that 


380  ABCHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

their  Architecture  is  not  only  imperial  but  impe- 
^rious ;  immediate  submission  to  Koman  might  is 
expressed  with  little  or  no  softening  of  the  hand 
of  authority.  The  Colosseum  may  be  taken  as 
the  symbol  of  this  stage  of  Roman  Architecture. 
All  Rome  was  gathered  to  witness  tlie  slaughter 
of  the  vanquished  man  or  beast  by  the  victor. 
Rome  is  indeed  now  the  victor,  and  applauds  the 
victorious  gladiator  in  the  mimic  battle ;  but  she 
is  destined  to  become  the  vanquished  herself  and 
to  be  torn  in  pieces  by  the  barbarians  whom  she 
now  butchers.  The  Colosseum  showed  also  this 
last  act  of  the  distant  future  to  the  gazing  multi- 
tude, who  may  well  have  felt  some  foreboding  of 
the  nemesis  which  lay  germinating  in  the  seeds 
of  Time.  The  Greek  forms  of  the  Colosseum, 
rudely  subjected  to  Roman  will,  manifest  the 
utter  loss  of  their  native  freedom . 

We  may  consider  the  reign  of  Hadrian  (117- 
138  A.  D.)  to  mark  the  turn  away  from  Rome, 
although  it  has  not  a  few  foreshadowings  in  the 
preceding  reign  (Trajan's).  An  indication  of 
the  coming  change  is  suggested  in  the  buildings 
of  Trajan  who  manifests  a  decided  return  to 
Hellenic  forms.  He  erected  both  a  Triumphal 
Arch  (Roman)  and  Triumphal  Column  (Greek), 
which  fact  may  be  taken  as  typical  of  the  man 
and  of  the  time. 

Still  Trajan  built  chiefly  at  Rome,  while 
Hadrian  built  chiefly  away   from  Rome,  in  the 


BOM  AN  IMPERIAL  PEBIOD.  381 

provinces.  A  large  part  of  his  life  and  activity 
was  passed  at  a  distance  from  the  Capital.  He 
showed  his  love  particularly  for  Athens,  and  it 
is  thought  that  at  one  time  he  entertained  the 
idea  of  residing  in  that  illustrious  city,  in  which 
he  left  many  monuments  of  his  repeated  visits. 
Some  of  these  works  are  yet  in  place,  as  the 
remaining  columns  of  the  Olympieion  and  the 
so-called  Hadrian's  Gate,  which  still  bears  his 
inscription.  Keally  Hadrian  became  a  Greek  in 
spirit,  and  surrounded  himself  with  Greek  phi- 
losophers, rhetoricians  and  artists.  Through  him 
personally  Hellas  has  begun  to  dominate  Rome 
intellectually. 

Hadrian  was  particularly  devoted  to  Architec- 
ture, and  did  not  neglect  Rome,  where  he  seems 
to  have  constructed  three  different  kinds  of 
edifices.  The  colossal  temple  of  Venus  et  Homa 
was  of  the  Greek  oblong  pattern  with  Peristyle. 
But  the  Pantheon  was  round,  and  so  was  his 
Mausoleum.  The  Villa  of  Hadrian,  however, 
was  his  great  architectural  work  at  Rome.  It 
was  a  city  in  itself,  with  palaces,  gardens,  foun- 
tains, theaters,  circuses,  libraries,  temples;  in 
fine,  it  was  a  collection  of  the  Architecture  of 
the  Roman  world.  Greece  was  there  with  her 
structures,  Lyceum,  Academy,  Propylaea,  etc. ; 
Egypt  was  there  with  temple,  obelisk,  column. 
This  country-seat  of  the  Roman  Emperor  was 
situated  a    few   miles  outside  of  the  city  near 


S82  ARCHITECTURE  —  EUROPEAN. 

Tivoli,  and  would  seem  to  indicate  that  all  the 
'diversity  of  Rome's  conquered  nations  had 
entered  the  capital  and  was  expressing  itself 
architecturally.  The  distinctive  buildings  of 
every  important  people  had  a  place  in  that  im- 
perial Villa,  and  were  given  full  validity.  Also 
the  festivals,  games,  customs  of  Egypt,  Greece  and 
Italy,  were  a  part  of  the  entertainment.  Such 
an  architectural  phenomenon  can  only  mean,  if 
it  be  a  true  reflection  of  its  time,  that  Rome,  in 
assimilating  the  nations,  is  being  assimilated  in 
turn,  and  her  national  unity  is  passing  into 
national   multiplicity. 

B.  The  Centrifugal  Movement. 

The  decentralization  of  the  Roman  Empire  in  a 
sense  begins  with  its  centralization,  as  these  two 
stages  are  counterparts  of  one  process.  Still  the 
one  has  the  emphasis  at  one  time,  the  other  has 
the  emphasis  at  a  different  time.  Already  we 
have  seen  Hadrian  internally  divided  between 
Greece  and  Rome,  or  between  East  and  West. 
That  dualism  will  widen  till  it  splits  the  Roman 
Empire  into  two  Empires.  From  Hadrian  till 
Constantine  the  period  is  one  of  separation  from 
Rome,  which  is  now  to  impart  to  all  what  has  been 
wrought  out  at  the  center.  Rome,  having  made 
herself  universal,  cannot  retain  her  individuality, 
her  original  Roman  nativism.  Even  the  Emperors 
were  no  longer  born  Romans ;  Trajan  and  Had- 


nOMAN  IMPERIAL  PEEIOD.  383 

rian  came  of  Spanish  parents  whose  ancestors 
had  emigrated  from  Hadria  in  Italy ;  most  of  the 
later  Emperors  were  Provincials,  some  of  them 
Orientals.  Thus  the  central  Will  of  the  great 
Whole  was  de-Romanized,  and  manifested  in 
various  ways  the  separation  from  Rome. 

Architecture  will  strongly  partake  of  this  cen- 
trifugal movement.  The  provincial  cities  will  be 
filled  with  Roman  works  —  Basilicas,  Baths, 
Amphitheaters  and  Theaters,  as  well  as  large  and 
costly  Temples.  In  some  respects  Architecture 
as  an  Art  will  degenerate.  That  which  we  noticed 
in  the  Hellenistic  Period,  again  takes  place. 
The  barbarian  had  been  indeed  Romanized,  but 
equally  certain  is  it  that  the  Roman  in  him  be- 
came barbarized.  Particularly  is  this  observable 
in  the  Roman  Architecture  of  the  East  (Baalbec, 
for  instance).  Still  it  was  a  beneficent  and  far- 
reaching  artistic  act  to  give  to  the  whole  civilized 
world  a  great  Architecture. 

This  act  we  call  beneficent,  and  it  began  its 
full  sweep  under  the  Antonines  who  were  ethical 
Emperors  in  the  noblest  sense  (Antoninus  Pius 
and  Marcus  Aurelius).  They  were  moral  phi- 
losophers, and  had  attained  the  conception  of  a 
universal  disinterestedness  which  they  sought  to 
make  practical  in  imperial  conduct.  All  prov- 
inces, all  cities  and  all  men  were  to  be  treated 
with  equal  regard  for  their  welfare.  When  such 
a  view  ruled  from  the  seat  of  highest  authority, 


384  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUEOPEAN. 

the  benefits  of  the  nations  were  not  to  be  heaped 
tipon  a  single  city,  but  were  to  be  equally  dis- 
tributed throughout  the  entire  Empire.  Archi- 
tecture also  shared  in  this  benevolent  distribution 
of  good  things  from  the  center. 

After  the  Antonines  came  a  series  of  violent 
changes  and  upheavals  premonitory  of  the 
approaching  dissolution.  Diocletian  (284-306, 
A.  D.)  removed  the  capital  from  Eome  and 
established  two  capitals,  Milan  and  Nicomedia. 
His  palace  also  he  built  far  from  the  Eoman 
center,  at  Spalato,  Dalmatia.  This  structure  is 
often  declared  to  be  decadent,  perverted,  the 
Roman  rococo,  in  which  the  classic  forms  of 
Architecture  are  disintegrating  with  many  a 
sign  of  a  new  style  being  born.  Columns  rest 
on  corbels,  have  their  own  special  entablatures, 
support  arches  which  are  themselves  orna- 
mental and  not  constructive.  Thus  the  Eoman 
Arch  is  reduced  to  the  same  state  of  servitude 
to  which  the  Greek  column  was  once  subjected 
at  Eome.  At  Spalato  both  column  and  arch 
are  decorative  and  are  put  together  to  diversify 
the  outside  of  a  wall,  which  seems  to  have  the 
chief  stress.  Such  we  may  take  to  be  the  hint 
of  the  coming  importance  of  the  enclosure  for 
the  church.  Towers  also  are  here,  no  less  than 
sixteen,  likewise  a  hint  of  the  future.  Eound 
pediments  we  see  and  interrupted  entablatures 
as  in  modern  rococo.     Spalato  may  show  deca- 


nOMAN^  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  385 

dence,  but  in  a  deeper  sense  it  shows  evolution, 
a  transition  from  an  outo^oino^  to  an  incoming 
order  reflected  in  Architecture.  Classic  forms 
are  still  employed,  but  often  dismembered,  dis- 
located from  their  organic  purpose,  broken  up 
and  sported  with  by  some  hidden,  yet  mighty 
power.  The  genuine  column,  peristyle,  arch  we 
find  also  at  Spalato,  but  in  the  presence  of  their 
own  disorganized  shapes  which  pre-figure  their 
approaching  dissolution.  A  new  and  stronger 
hand  seems  to  have  gotten  hold  of  Classic  Archi- 
tecture, and  is  giving  it  a  wrench  at  Spalato 
before  tumbling  it  to  ruin. 

After  Diocletian  comes  Constantine,  who 
made  permanent  the  separation  of  the  Roman 
Empire  into  Eastern  and  Western,  and  thus 
completed  the  centrifugal  movement  from  Rome 
by  establishing  a  new  center  at  Constantinople. 
The  first  years  of  his  imperial  rule  he  spent  at 
Rome,  but  he  found  it  worn  out,  with  no  power 
of  recuperation.  Accordingly  he  resolved  to 
change  the  capital,  and  build  a  new  Empire. 
Hellas  had  been  gaining  fresh  strength  for  cen- 
turies, manifesting  the  capacity  of  being  resur- 
rected. So  Constantine  went  to  Hellas,  pro- 
posing to  reconstitute  it,  not  as  Heathen  but  as 
Christian.  He  saw  that  he  could  save  the  Roman 
Empire  only  by  giving  up  Rome.  But  he  did  not 
go  to  old  Athens  or  to  older  Troy  (which  he 
seems  once  to  have  projected),  nor  to  the  Orient; 

25 


hh^         AncmTEGTtikis  —  European. 

on  the  contrary,  he  took  for  his  capital  a  Greek 
colony,  an  outlying  northern  town  on  the  Hel- 
lenic borderland,  yet  with  young  blood  in  its 
veins  and  capable  of  growth.  And  it  was  the 
gate  between  Europe  and  Asia,  where  the  bar- 
barous hordes  of  the  East,  not  being  sailors, 
would  have  to  cross.  In  olden  times  Darius  and 
Xerxes  entered  Europe  by  this  narrow  gate  of 
the  North,  which  Constantinople  naturally  com- 
manded. And  we  must  recollect  that  the 
Eastern  Empire  beat  off  the  Mahommedans  for 
seven  centuries.  In  the  West  through  Spain  the 
Arabians  obtained  their  first  strong  foothold  in 
Europe. 

It  must  be  granted  that  one  of  the  greatest 
acts  in  all  history  was  that  of  Constantine  jn 
founding  the  Eastern  Empire  with  capital  at  Con- 
stantinople. A  new  ingathering  of  the  nations 
takes  place  there,  a  new  imperial  centralization  we 
behold,  with  a  new  centripetal  movement  of 
Architecture  culminating  in  a  fresh  outburst  of 
Greek  architectonic  genius  equal  in  its  way  to 
the  Parthenon,  namely,  St.  Sophia's.  But  this 
movement  is  no  longer  Classic,  but  Christian,  and 
so  belongs  to  a  later  chaptei*. 

III.  The  End  of  the  Classic  World. 

The  Roman  Empire  was  dissolving,  particu- 
larly at  its  heart  in  Italy  and  Rome.  This  is 
what  Constantine  saw  and  found  to  be  inevitable. 


nOMAN  IMPEBIAL  PERIOD.  38"? 

An  inner  decay  was  manifest  everywhere,  which 
had  its  counterpart  in  an  outer  blow  of  Fate. 

Already  the  barbarians  of  the  North  had 
begun  to  push  in  the  boundaries  of  the  Empire, 
and  to  take  possession  of  the  land.  The  Goths 
entered  Italy  and  settled  there  not  long  after 
the  time  of  Constantine.  Then  they  reached 
Rome  under  Alaric  and  sacked  it  in  the  year  410 
A.  D.  The  outer  rim  of  barbarism  had  now 
attained  the  center,  and  wreaked  vengeance  upon 
it,  seeking  to  destroy  it  politically  and  also 
architecturally. 

The  sack  of  Rome  by  the  Goths  was  but  the 
prelude  of  the  destruction  which  was  about  to 
take  place  throughout  the  Classic  World.  In 
this  light  we  may  call  it  a  typical  deed,  which 
was  to  extend  itself  from  the  capital  in  all  direc- 
tions. The  destroyer  had  reached  Rome  in  an 
act  of  concentrated  vengeance,  from  which  center 
he  now  moved  outwards  and  desolated  a  large 
part  of  the  empire  for  centuries.  Such  was  the 
blow  of  Fate  which  put  an  end  to  that  antique 
civilization,  shivering  it  into  fragments. 

Particularly  upon  Architecture  as  the  outer 
visible  manifestation  of  "the  Classic  World  did 
this  blow  of  Fate  fall  with  the  most  vindictive 
energy.  At  once  the  magnificent  edifices  of 
Greece  and  Rome  began  to  crumble  and  sink 
into  heaps  of  broken  stones.  The  whole  line  of 
them  reaching  from  the  earliest  temples  of  Sicily 


388  AnCBlTECTURB  —  BUBOPEATf. 

down  through  Greece,  Asia  Minor  and  the 
Orient,  and  also  extending  through  Italy  and  the 
West,  started  to  droop  and  go  to  pieces.  To-day 
throughout  the  Mediterranean  countries  which 
formed  the  territory  of  that  ancient  culture,  we 
behold  the  ruins  of  its  Architecture,  which, 
better  than  any  other  Art,  shows  the  intensity 
and  universality  the  blow  of  Fate  smiting  Col- 
umn and  Arch  in  the  religious  and  secular  struc- 
tures of  antiquity. 

Thus  the  institutional  Homes  of  the  Classic 
World  were  destroyed,  along  with  the  Spirit 
that  built  them.  The  life  had  departed,  and  the 
body  decayed.  But  underneath  this  destruction 
of  the  old,  a  new  institutional  abode  was  slowly 
emerging,  the  Home  of  the  new  Divinity  and  the 
new  Institutions.  The  old  institutional  world, 
after  all  its  endeavor,  had  failed  to  make  itself 
universal,  had  shown  itself  inadequate  and  finite, 
had  been  unable  to  assimilate  the  outlying  bar- 
barian. Thus  the  same  limit  which  bounded 
Greece,  also  bounded  Rome,  though  far  more 
extended  in  the  latter  case.  Such  is  the  limit  of 
the  Classic  World  and  really  that  which  consti- 
tutes its  Fate.  From  that  barbarous  boundary 
will  come  the  blow  which  ends  Greco-Roman 
civilization  with  its  works,  even  if  there  be  an 
inner  decadence  corresponding  to  and  co-oper- 
ating with  the  outer  stroke  of  destiny. 

The  great  world-historical    question  now  is: 


BOMAN  IMPERIAL  PERIOD.  389 

Can  a  new  order  be  built  up  which  will  take  in 
and  transform  barbarism,  so  that  it  can  never  be 
again  an  external  Fate  to  civilization?  This  is 
the  problem  which  Christianity  solves,  thus 
making  itself  more  universal  than  the  Classic 
World.  Its  principle  is  in  this  regard  to  convert 
and  to  assimilate  the  barbarian,  thus  doing  away 
with  that  crushing  limit  of  external  Fate  which 
always  hung  over  and  finally  destroyed  Greco- 
Eoman  civilization.  This  principle  is  what  re- 
quires a  complete  reconstruction  of  Classic 
Architecture.  For  a  new  religion  and  with  it  a 
new  God  has  risen  in  men's  consciousness,  and 
He  must  have  a  new  institutional  Home  for  Him- 
self, which  fact  lies  in  the  very  essence  of  all 
Architecture  worthy  of  the  name. 

It  was  the  barbarian  who  smote  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  broke  topieces  imperial  Architecture. 
The  ruins  of  Rome  are  largely  the  work  of  Teu- 
tonic tribes.  This  was  their  negative  act,  which 
brings  home  to  the  Classic  World  its  inadequacv 
and  finitude.  These  tribes  became  Christian. 
They  found  that  the  Christian  Religion  had  an 
element  of  antagonism  to  Rome  which  had  per- 
secuted it  for  centuries.  We  can  understand  that 
the  conversion  of  the  barbarians  had  its  political 
phase  and  that  Latin  Rome  was  destroyed  by 
Christians,  who  were  the  instruments  in  clearing 
the  way  for  the  new  order. 

But  to  this  negative  side  there  is  a  positive: 


390  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EVBOPEAN. 

Kome  through  destruction  is  preserved  —  which 
seeming  contradiction  means  that  her  own 
destructive  nature  is  destroyed,  her  negation  is 
negated  and  made  positive  by  the  new  order. 
Thus  her  architectural  structures,  which  are  the 
Homes  of  her  heathen  institutions,  will  be  cast 
down;  but  her  architectural  forms  —  column, 
arch,  vault,  dome  —  will  remain  and  become 
more  prolific  than  ever,  being  generative  of  the 
Homes  of  the  new  institutional  world,  especially 
of  the  Home  of  the  Spirit  which  brought  it 
forth.  A.  Gothic  building  seems  very  different 
from  a  Classic  one,  yet  it  is  but  a  variation  of 
Classic  forms  —  column,  arch,  vault  and  cross- 
vault —  which  the  Greco-Roman  World  developed 
and  applied  in  its  own  way.  The  architectural 
spirit  of  the  ages  is  still  going  to  use  these  forms 
in  the  creation  of  new  kinds  of  structures,  of 
new  institutional  abodes.  They  are  truly  forms, 
ideas,  being  genetic  of  a  manifold  construction. 
The  coming  European  Architecture — Byzan- 
tine, Romanesque,  Gothic,  even  Moorish — will 
simply  develop  in  new  ways  this  heritage  of 
Classic  forms,  transhaping  and  combining  them 
into  an  untold  variety  of  structures  which 
together  constitute  a  new  Style,  which  we  call 
the  Romanic. 

Herewith  the  Classic  Style  has  reached  its 
conclusion,  having  rounded  itself  out  to  a  fulfilled 
process,    which,    however,  is  the   beginning   of 


ROMAN  IMPEBIAL  P^BIOD.  391 

another  process.  The  Hellenic,  Hellenistic,  and 
Eonian  Imperial  Periods  form  a  grand  Totality, 
which  imparts  a  sense  of  something  finished,  of 
a  complete  fulfillment  and  realization  of  an  idea. 
But  this  vast  process  is  only  a  part  of  a  process 
still  vaster,  of  the  total  European  process  of 
Architecture,  which  is  itself  but  a  stage  of  the 
world's  architectural  development  up  to  date. 
And  yet  each  of  these  lesser  proce^es  bears 
in  itself  the  process  of  the  All  (Pampsychosis) 
which  is  the  primal  originative  Power  creating  it 
and  impressing  it  with  just  this  creative  process 
of  itself  seen  in  the  smallest  and  in  the  largest 
of  creation. 

Next  we  are  to  see  the  same  all-creative  energy 
building  itself  out  in  a-  line  of  fresh  constructive 
shapes  which  must  ultimately  reveal  that  funda- 
mental process  of  the  All  (Pampsychosis)  in  a 
new  stage  of  its  own  eternal  self-realization. 


Section  Second  —  The   Romanic   Style. 

We  have  now  reached  the  point  when  the 
second  great  movement  of  European  Archi- 
tecture begins,  which  we  call  a  Style,  indicating 
that  the  European  Type  remains,  but  that  the 
inner  character  of  this  Type  undergoes  a  deeply 
significant  alteration.  Europe  passes  out  of 
Heathendom  into  Christendom,  and  Architecture 
reflects  the  change,  perhaps  more  than  any  other 
Art.  The  new  God  (or  new  conception  of  God) 
must  have  a  new  Home.  This  new  God  will 
also  have  his  new  Institution,  distinctively  called 
the  Church,  which  is  also  the  name  given  to  his 
outer  habitation.  Associated  man  again  builds 
the  abode  of  the  Spirit  which  associates  him  in 
392) 


THE  BOMANIC  STYLE  393 

a  new  order  of  the  ages,  and  which  makes  him 
Christian.  The  God-consciousness,  being  the 
first  source  of  all  great  Architecture,  will  proceed 
to  erect  a  worthy  house  of  the  deity  who  has 
brought  the  regenerating  light.  This  is  what 
calls  forth  Romanic  Architecture,  in  distinction 
from  Classic,  which  has  now  run  its  course. 

By  the  adjective  Romanic  we  intend  to  em- 
phasize the  fact  that  this  new  Architecture 
springs  from  Rome,  and  pre-supposes  the  Roman 
imperial  forms  of  construction.  We  cannot  well 
call  it  Christian,  since  it  is  also  Mahometan, 
and  perchance  even  Jewish  and  Hindoo;  but 
whithersoever  it  went,  it  showed  its  Roman  kin- 
ship. Moreover  its  field  is  essentially  the  Roman 
territory  of  the  Empire,  whose  centrifugal  spirit 
scattered  her  buildings  over  the  world  and  paved 
the  way  for  her  Romanic  successor.  Nor  is  the 
term  Bomanic  equivalent  to  what  is  ordinarily 
called  Romantic,  even  if  the  two  words  be  of  the 
same  root,  and  cognate  in  meaning.  Romantic 
Art,  for  instance,  is  usually  employed  to  signify 
medieval  Christian  Art.  And  the  so-called 
Romance  languages  are  spoken  in  but  a  small  por- 
tion of  the  area  of  Romanic  Architecture. 

I.  What  is  the  primal  architectural  act  of  this 
Romanic  Style?  In  a  general  way  it  is  to  take 
inside  and  to  develop  there  all  that  the  Classic 
Style  has  evolved  outside.  It  is  to  interiorize 
the  exterior  of  the  antique  world.      The    outer 


394  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN, 

life  which  the  Greco-Roman  spirit  developed  so 
fully  is  to  be  made  inner,  and  this  process  is  to 
be  manifested  in  Architecture.  Of  course  man 
himself  must  first  be  interiorized  by  a  new  faith 
before  he  can  interiorize  the  old  Classic  forms^. 

The  primal  architectural  act  of  Hellas,  which 
opens  the  whole  sweep  of  Greco-Roman  Archi- 
tecture, was  the  exteriorizing  of  the  Hellenic 
Peristyle.  In  Egypt  the  columns  were  inside 
the  Temple ;  but  the  Greek  threw  them  outside 
into  a  self -returning  colonnade,  while  the  walled 
Cella  remained  inside  (see  preceding  p.  145). 
But  in  Romanic  Architecture  these  two  elements 
are  quite  reversed.  The  wall  of  the  Cella 
now  moves  outside  and  encloses  the  colonnade 
with  all  its  connecting  forms  —  architrave, 
arch,  vault,  cross  vault,  and  dome.  In  one  sense 
this  is  a  return  to  the  Egyptian  temple  with  its 
outer  enclosure ;  but  what  is  enclosed  architect- 
urally is  a  product  very  different  from  anything 
Egypt  ever  had,  namely,  the  whole  development 
of  Greco-Roman  forms  of  construction. 

The  Cella,  the  inner  religious  portion  of  the 
Greek  temple  which  contained  the  image  of  the 
God,  is  thus  made  to  embrace  the  outer  worldly 
Peristyle  instead  of  being  embraced  by  it.  The 
Greek  temple  is  transmuted  slowly  into  the 
Christian  church,  following  a  similar  metamor- 
phosis of  the  Spirit  of  the  Age.  The  columnar 
individuals   of   the   Peristyle  are   taken   inside. 


THE  BOMANIG  STYLE.  395 

where  they  still  support  the  structure  but  with  a 
new  meaning.  A  communal  purpose  they  still 
have,  upholding  the  home  of  an  institution, 
which  is  now  the  Christian  conffreo^ation.  All 
may  come  in,  the  only  condition  being  that  the 
soul  must  have  undergone  the  same  transforma- 
tion which  we  have  noted  in  the  Architecture. 
The  world,  however,  is  excluded  by  the  same 
walls  which  include;  the  outer  appearances  of 
beautiful  Hellas  must  be  turned  inward,  in  order 
to  enter  this  new  sacred  Enclosure »  The  Greek 
Peristyle  with  its  line  of  open  entrances  turned 
outward  and  looked  toward  the  world,  away 
from  the  interior  Cella,  which,  however,  has 
now  become  exterior. 

It  is  the  first  function  of  this  new  interior  to 
develop  itself  and  to  continue  interiorizing  the 
forms  of  Classic  Architecture,  till  it  quite  em- 
braces them  all.  Necessarily  this  process  leads 
to  the  exterior,  which  must  also  be  transformed, 
till  at  last  it  adequately  reflects  the  interior.  At 
first  Komanic  Architecture  will  neglect  the  out- 
side, in  fact  will  try  to  make  it  conceal  what  is 
inside,  in  order  not  to  attract  interference 
and  persecution.  But  when  opposition  ceases 
and  when  Christianity  has  become  dominant,  it 
will  seek  not  only  to  indicate  but  to  transfigure 
the  outside  in  harmony  with  the  inside.  This 
reaches  its  highest  point  in  the  Gothic. 

In  the  foregoing  development  of  the  entirety 


396  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

of  Romanic  Architecture  (of  which  Gothic  is  the 
final  phase),  we  may  note  the  following  stages, 
which,  being  put  together,  show  its  total  sweep. 
First  is  the  act  of  interiorizing  the  Classic,  the 
movement  inward.  Second  is  the  development 
of  this  interior  in  itself,  lasting  many  centuries. 
Third  is  the  movement  outward,  the  exterioriz- 
ing of  the  Romanic  interior  which  has  unfolded. 
Such  is  in  a  general  statement  the  complete  cycle 
of  the  Romanic  Style :  the  unfolding  from  with- 
out inward,  the  self-unfolding  inward,  the  un- 
folding from  within  outward.  The  succeeding 
exposition  can  only  develop  and  illustrate  these 
three  grand  steps  or  rather  strides. 

At  the  same  time  the  foregoing  movement  is 
the  transition  from  secularity  to  religiosity. 
There  gets  to  be  in  old  Rome  an  inner  secularity 
of  Spirit  and  of  Architecture,  but  this  is  not  yet 
religious,  though  on  the  way  thereto.  The 
Roman  will  have  legality  and  ethics,  but  these 
do  not  constitute  religion.  The  statutory  law 
and  even  the  moral  law  are  still  human,  not 
divine,  even  if  they  both  lead  up  to  and  invoke 
a  divine  personality  for  their  ultimate  sanction. 
They  are  abstractions  without  their  personal  cre- 
ative Ego  as  their  origin.  The  abstract  Law, 
both  statutory  and  moral,  though  it  be  universal, 
becomes  truly  concrete  through  the  universal 
Lawo^iver,  Creator  of  the  Universe  and  hence  of 
all  that  is  universal.     The  legality  and  morality 


THE  ROMANIC  STYLE.  397 

of  the  Classic  world  are  not  without  inwardness, 
but  it  is  of  the  man  not  of  the  God.  In  later 
Rome  we  have  already  noted  the  secular  interior- 
izing  of  Architecture,  particularly  in  the  Basilica 
of  Constantine  and  in  the  Baths  of  Diocletian 
and  Caracalla.  But  this  interiority  hardly 
touched  the  Roman  temple,  and  thus  did  not 
enter  the  institutional  home  of  the  heathen 
deities,  who  refused  to  dwell  in  these  new 
houses,  but  took  up  their  abode  in  the  old  tra- 
ditional forms  of  sanctuaries  hallowed  by  time. 
The  enlightened  Hadrian  did  indeed  vault  his 
temple  of  Venus  et  Roma ,  though  otherwise  in 
its  construction  he  clung  to  the  transmitted 
pattern  of  Peristyle  and  Cella.  But  now  the 
secular  Architecture  of  Rome,  born  of  the  free 
incoming  Spirit,  is  to  be  made  religious  by  the 
new  faith,  in  fact  by  the  new  God,  who  will  take 
just  these  old  architectural  forms  and  work  them 
over  into  His  new  institutional  abode,  the 
Church. 

n.  The  duration  of  the  Romanic  Style  is 
somewhat  more,  than  a  thousand  years,  if  we 
reckon  it  from  the  time  of  Constantine  till  the 
budding  of  the  Renaissance.  It  was  Constantine 
who  tolerated  and  then  espoused  Christianity,  so 
that  its  Architecture  could  come  out  of  remote 
corners  and  hiding-places  and  start  upon  a  career 
of  free  open  development  from  the  fourth  to 
the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries. 


^98  ARCniTECtVEE  —  STTROPEA^, 

The  previous  Classic  Style  had  lasted  about 
the  same  length  of  time,  calculating  it  from  the 
first  Doric  temple  in  Sicily  till  somewhat  after 
the  age  of  Constantine,  which  it  overlapped, 
though  with  ever-diminishing  energy.  These  two 
millennial  movements  of  Architecture  have  their 
similarities,  but  in  the  widest  sense  they  are 
stages  of  the  one  vast  process  of  the  European 
Type.  The  first  stage,  the  Classic,  we  have 
seen  developing  in  a  single  nation,  the  Hellenic, 
and  thence  rising  to  universality  through  Rome 
and  thereby  becoming  the  possession  of  all  civ- 
ilized nations.  But  the  second  stage,  the  Ro- 
manic, shows  in  the  main  the  movement  the 
other  way:  this  universal  Architecture  is  no 
longer  imposed  upon  the  conquered  nations  from 
without  by  Rome,  but  is  freely  taken  up  by  each 
one  of  them  and  wrought  over  in  'accord  with 
the  national  spirit.  If  the  Classic  moves  from 
a  single  ethnic  to  a  universal  (or  pan-ethnic) 
Architecture,  the  Romanic  on  the  contrary  moves 
from  a  single,  universal  Architecture  to  many 
ethnic  ones,  through  the  medieval  restoration  of 
nationality  to  the  European  peoples.  If  it  be 
worth  the  while  to  use  technical  terms  to  express 
briefly  the  foregoing  process,  we  may  say  that 
the  Classic  gives  the  movement  from  a  mono- 
ethnic  to  a  pan-ethnic  Architecture,  while  the 
Romanic  gives  the  movement  from  a  pan-ethnic 
to  a  poly-ethnic  Architecture.     The  one  shows 


TME  noMANIC  3TYLJS.  B&§ 

the  tendency  to  secularize  the  religious  element 
in  the  universal  State,  the  other  shows  the  ten- 
dency to  religionize  the  secular  element  in  the 
universal  Church:  both  of  which  tendencies 
manifest  themselves  in  their  respective  Archi- 
tectures. 

III.  The  locality  of  the  Komanic  Style  is,  in 
general,  the  territory  of  imperial  Rome.  This 
territory  it  fills  to  the  brim  in  most  parts,  and  at 
several  places  it  runs  over  the  edges  into  lands 
which  were  never  Roman,  for  instance  India,  and 
perhaps  China.  Throughout  this  vast  region 
were  Roman  imperial  buildings,  which  sometimes 
fell  to  ruin,  sometimes  became  a  quarry  for 
ordinary  huts  and  even  for  limestone,  and  some- 
times were  directly  transformed  into  new  institu- 
tional structures,  as  churches  and  mosques.  But 
in  any  case  they  were  the  point  of  departure  for 
the  edifices  built  to  house  the  new  deity.  The 
grand  metamorphosis  of  the  Classic  into  the 
Romanic  took  place  throughout  the  whole  area 
of  the  Roman  Empire  in  little  nooks  as  well  as 
in  great  cities.  At  a  single  blow  of  the  World- 
Spirit  the  mighty  edifice  of  Rome  was  shivered 
and  dropped  into  a  ruin,  yet  out  of  this  ruin  we 
are  to  see  the  new  edifice  emerging  with  fresh 
youth  and  beauty. 

The  enormous  mass  of  nations,  loosened  from 
the  grip  of  the  central  city,  divides  and  sub- 
divides into  many  groups  large  and  small.     The 


400  ABCHITECTVEE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

principle  of  separation  enters  and  dominates  the 
Romanic  era,  but  it  is  a  separation  of  the  pre- 
vious Roman  unity  which  always  underlies  the 
manifold  divisions.  First  is  the  separation  into 
East  and  West,  the  former  maintaining  still  the 
Roman  concentration  and  producing  the  Byzan- 
tine Empire  with  its  Architecture.  But  Byzan- 
tine Architecture  will  again  divide  within  itself, 
following  the  great  schism  of  the  Christian  and 
Mohammedan  religions.  The  West  will  show 
even  a  stronger  tendency  to  division  which  will 
fill  Europe  with  a  marvelous  diversity  of  ecclesias- 
tical structures. 

Thus  the  one  extensive  area  of  the  Roman 
Empire  with  its  Architecture  splits  up  into  many 
national  areas,  each  having  the  tendency  to  work 
over  in  its  own  way  the  Roman  building.  It  is 
true  that  already  before  the  fall  of  Rome  this 
ethnic  tendency  could  be  observed  in  Architec- 
ture. The  imperial  structures  at  Palmyra  and 
Baalbec  show  in  their  forms  a  different  mood  or 
national  character  from  that  of  Rome  or  Greece, 
even  if  these  forms  be  the  Roman  arch  and 
vault,  or  the  Greek  column  and  entablature. 
But  when  the  nations  are  set  free  from  the  cen- 
tral authority,  they  will  begin  to  develop  freely 
a  national  Architecture. 

IV.  This  tendency  to  separation  is,  accord- 
ingly, not-  merely  an  external  one  of  territory, 
but  an  internal  one  of  the  spirit.     The  division 


THE  ROMANIC  STYLE,  401 

into  East  and  West  carried  with  it  not  only  the 
political  Institution,  the  State,  but  also  the 
religious  Institution,  the  Church.  Hence  there 
became  an  Eastern  (or  Greek)  and  a  Western 
(or  Latin)  Christianity,  which  fact  also  re- 
flects itself  in  Architecture.  Then  there  is  the 
division  into  State  and  Church,  or  into  the  tem- 
poral and  spiritual  powers,  which  have  filled 
Europe  with  quarrels  down  to  this  day,  and  the 
conflict  is  not  yet  ended  by  any  means.  Archi- 
tectural hints  of  this  conflict  we  find  particularly 
in  Western  Europe  which  divides  territorially 
and  spiritually  into  North  and  South.  The 
West-Romanic  Architecture  will  also  dualize 
itself  into  the  two  great  streams,  the  Roman- 
esque proper  and  the  Gothic. 

Still  another  spiritual  scission,  and  perchance 
the  deepest,  of  the  Romanic  era  is  to  be  noted : 
that  between  Spirit  itself  and  Nature.  In  the 
long  desperate  attempt  to  civilize  and  to  relig- 
ionize the  barbarous  peoples  of  the  North,  in 
whom  the  physical  and  sensuous  element  enor- 
mously preponderated,  the  Church  turned,  and 
indeed  had  to  turn,  in  order  to  fulfill  its  mission, 
against  Nature  herself,  who  thus  became  an  outcast 
and  was  execrated  as  diabolic.  What  a  struggle 
Europe  had  to  get  back  to  Nature  and  to  take 
her  up  again  into  the  cycle  of  science,  and  even 
to  make  her  religious,  is  not  here  to  be  told; 
but  the  struggle  against  Nature  finds  its  image 

26 


402  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN, 

in  European  Architecture,  particularly  in  the 
Gothic. 

The  Romanic  era  is  thus  deeply  separative 
externally  and  internally,  yet  with  strong  counter 
currents  in  the  direction  of  unity.  When  the 
Greek  threw  his  columns  outside  and  dualized 
his  temple  into  Peristyle  and  Cella,  it  was  noted 
as  the  opening  act  of  Europe's  dualism  mani- 
fested in  Architecture.  But  Romanic  Architec- 
ture is  more  deeply  divisive  and  dualistic,  since 
it  divides  up  the  unity  attained  by  Rome  in  the 
antique  world.  So  we  are  to  see  the  Romanic 
as  the  second  or  separative  stage  in  the  total 
sweep  (or  Psychosis)  of  European  Architecture*. 

V.  The  fall  of  Rome  was  the  fall  of  a  world, 
not  the  destruction  of  a  single  nation.  Rome 
had  succeeded  in  incorporating  all  civilized  na- 
tions into  her  body  politic,  and  so  her  decline  and 
death  seemed  to  involve  all  peoples  in  the  same 
common  fate.  They  rallied  and  restored  separate 
nationality  which  had^  been  swallowed  up  in  the 
Roman  Empire,  and  never  again  perhaps  will  the 
destiny  of  civilization  be  staked  upon  a  single 
nation. 

The  individual  of  that  time  began  to  feel  the 
coming  dissolution  of  the  Roman  world,  and 
could  not  help  anxiously  asking,  What  next? 
Whither  shall  we  flee  from  this  crash  of  the  All? 
The  downfall  of  Rome  seemed  the  cataclysm  of 
the  Universe,  and  the  foreboding  soul  felt,  if  it 


THE  JROMANIG  STYLE,  403 

did  not  hear,  the  crack  of  Doom.  Hence  the 
incantations,  the  supplications  to  every  imagin- 
able God,  the  crass  superstitions  which  rocked 
and  tossed  all  minds  in  the  mighty  descent  and 
decadence  of  Rome.  The  times  scourged  man  to 
religion  with  a  whip  of  the  Furies,  and  gave  him 
no  peace.  What  lies  behind  or  under  this 
universal  dissolution?  Only  a  God  could  destroy 
Rome,  and  Him  we  must  find  in  order  to  be 
saved.  Terror  again,  if  it  does  not  produce,  at 
least  revives  religion.  The  fear  of  the  destroy- 
ing God  is  inspired  by  the  ruins  of  the  Eternal 
City.  But  is  He  also  loving,  placable,  preserv- 
ing? The  Christian  of  that  age  answers  the 
question,  and  gives  hope  and  consolation  by  his 
religion  of  a  suffering  God,  going  through  the 
whole  process  of  pain,  death  and  resurrection. 

It  was  not  merely  some  personal  affliction  of 
body  or  mind  which  the  individual  felt,  but  the 
agony  of  his  whole  social  order  going  to  pieces. 
A  world  was  dying,  and  hence  the  haunting 
remediless  pain  of  the  time,  truly  a  World-pain 
{Weltschmerz) ,  which  sank  into  every  soul  of 
that  epoch.  The  philosopher,  particularly  the 
Neo-Platonist,  gave  his  panacea,  which  was  to 
get  rid  not  merely  of  life  but  of  consciousness 
by  a  flight  back  into  the  all-containing  One  in 
whom  individuality  was  obliterated.  This  must 
be  regarded  as  a  negative  solution.  The  Chris- 
tian, on  the  contrary,  was  to  meet  this  pain  and 


404      AB  CEITE  C  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEA  Y. 

destruction,  counteract  it  with  his  faith,  and 
thereby  carry  the  world  over  the  spiritual  abyss 
of  the  age  to  salvation.  He  believed  in  a  Savior 
who  had  gone  through  the  total  process  of  suffer- 
ing, death  and  resurrection,  of  which  process  the 
dying  Koman  world  was  only  a  part,  and  icideed 
a  vanishing  part.  The  Christian  suffered,  indeed 
loved  suffering,  we  might  almost  say  he  reveled 
in  it,  since  this  was  the  means  of  becoming  like 
Christ,  and  of  going  through  literally  the  total 
process  of  Christ.  He  courted  martyrdom, 
often  insisted  upon  it,  forcing  it  from  an  unwill- 
ing magistracy. 

As  the  Christian  stepped  into  his  Basilica,  he 
must  have  brouo^ht  with  him  the  sufferinor  of  his 
time,  which,  however,  he  was  spiritually  to  move 
through  and  out  of  by  worship,  by  re-enacting 
in  hi's  own  soul  the  deed  of  the  Savior.  Thus 
he  saved  himself  and  the  world,  of  course  by 
transforming  it,  by  completing  its  process  and 
thus  rescuing  it  from  its  own  self-destruction. 
He  saved  Roman  Architecture  from  its  own  blow 
by  transforming  it  into  a  Church.  He  saved 
column  and  arch,  vault  and  dome,  ultimately 
through  the  Savior,  which  appellation  is  seen  to 
have  the  deepest  significance  for  building  the 
Home  of  the  new  Institution.  To-day  we  have 
the  Parthenon  and  the  Theseion  because  they 
turned  Christian  and  thereby  were  saved,  the 
heathen   temple   in   this    case  undergoing   little 


THE  BOMANIC  STYLE.  405 

transformation.  The  Christian  missionaries  con- 
verted the  barbarian  from  a  destroyer  of  Eome 
into  a  preserver.  Everywhere  this  saving  pro- 
cess of  the  new  faith  is  active,  and  causes  that 
old,  painful,  negative  world  to  become  young, 
joyful,  positive. 

It  was  through  Christ,  then,  that  tHe  new  God 
was  revealed  in  a  divine  act,  of  which  the 
Kevealer  was  Himself  a  part,  and  in  which  every 
believer  was  to  participate  by  re-enacting  the 
divine  process.  The  Christian  was  not  simply 
to  be  a  good,  moral,  charitable  man;  such  he 
could  be  and  remain  heathen,  imitating  Marcus 
Aurelius  instead  of  Christ.  But  Ethics,  though 
enthroned  in  an  Emperor  and  governing  the 
world,  could  not  save  that  world,  for  Ethics  had 
not  the  total  divine  process  which  secured 
redemption.  Still  less  could  the  Law  pure  and 
simple  save  the  world,  though  it  ultimately 
has  a  divine  source,  which  is  directly  affirmed  in 
the  Mosaic,  though  not  in  the  Roman  Law,  as 
this  consciously  drew  from  the  Ethics  of  Stoi- 
cism, to  a  large  extent.  Morality  and  legality 
cannot  bring  the  estranged  soul  back  to  its 
divinely  creative  fountain,  there  to  drink  of  the 
waters  of  regeneration ;  they  have  not  in  them- 
selves the  complete  process  of  religion  and  would 
have  perished  likewise  in  the  fall  of  Rome  with- 
out the  aid  of  Christianity,  which  had,  however, 
to  pass  them  also  through  its  alembic. 


406  ABGBITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN, 

Such  is  the  deep-seated  source  of  the  trans- 
formation of  the  antiquated  Roman  into  the  re- 
juvenated Romanic  Architecture,  making  over 
the  external  into  the  internal,  the  worldly  into  the 
divine,  the  secular  into  the  religious,  and  thus 
bringing  the  estranged  soul  into  reconciliation 
with  the  Creator  of  the  Universe.  The  Church 
in  its  structure  is  to  suggest  this  work  of  medi- 
ation. 

VI.  The  mediatorial  act  of  worship  had  its 
external  side  within  the  Church.  It  was  per- 
formed through  the  priesthood,  who  had  their 
own  distinct  portion  of  the  edifice,  separated 
from  and  elevated  above  the  audience.  Thus 
man  was  mediated  with  the  Mediator  through  an 
intervening  order  of  mediators,  the  hierarchy. 
In  this  way  arose  a  new  distinction,  that  between 
ecclesiastic  and  layman,  the  ruling  and  the  ruled 
in  spiritual  matters.  The  hierarchy  wrought  for 
the  people's  welfare  and  salvation,  but  deter- 
mined the  entire  method  thereof  autocratically. 
The  European  dualism  between  the  privileged 
aristocrat  and  the  unprivileged  masses  arose  in 
the  Church  as  well  as  in  the  State. 

So  it  comes  that  Romanic  Architecture  is 
essentially  sacerdotal,  and  remained  so  through 
all  its  mutations.  This  does  not  mean  simply 
that  it  was  religious,  for  all  great  Architecture 
springs  from  a  faith.  The  Greek  temple  was 
born  in  a  religious  period  of   the   Greek   race. 


THE  BOMANIC  STYLE.  407 

Column  and  Peristyle  were  at  first  sacred  forms, 
even  if  they  were  afterwards  secularized.  Eoman 
Architecture  was  also  religious  at  the  start,  par- 
ticularly the  round  temples.  One  thinks  that 
the  Pantheon  bears  the  mark  of  a  revival  of  the 
old-Latin  religion  emphasized  by  its  size.  The 
Parthenon  and  the  Pantheon  were  both  religious 
but  not  sacerdotal,  even  if  they  had  priestly  at- 
tendants. But  the  striking  object  in  the  Romanic 
Church  was  the  graded  clergy  in  the  choir, 
toward  whom  the  main  lines  moved  along  the 
aisles  and  galleries,  and  at  whom  the  congrega- 
tion directed  their  worshipful  faces.  And  this 
could  not  be  well  otherwise.  The  clergy  had 
the  great  duty  of  mediating  the  people,  of  re- 
vivifying in  their  souls  the  saving  process  of 
Christ,  that  they  perish  not  in  the  ruins  of  a 
falling  world,  nay,  that  they  build  a  new  world 
out  of  these  ruins. 

And  yet  this  sacerdotal  element  had  its  pro- 
cess, involving  inner  scission  and  conflict,  which 
also  will  be  reflected  in  Architecture.  Against 
the  clerical  autocracy,  which  claims  the  total 
circuit  of  mediating  the  individual  with  God,  as 
represented  in  the  old  Basilica,  we  shall  find  a 
later  protest  both  in  the  East  and  in  the  West, 
both  in  the  Byzantine  and  Romanesque.  In 
fact,  Romanic  Architecture  in  its  deepest  muta- 
tions must  turn  upon  just  this  clerical  process  of 
mediating    the   human  with   the  divine.     That 


408  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EVBOPEAN. 

apse,  where  the  clergy  are  seated,  will  remain  to 
the  end  of  the  Romanic  movement  in  the  Gothic, 
but  its  early  absolutism  will  undergo  many  a 
change  and  limitation. 

It  is  this  Romanic  movement  which  in  one  way 
or  other  destroys  Greco-Roman  Architecture  in 
its  complete  edifices,  yet  preserves  and  perpetu- 
ates their  elements  —  column,  arch,  vault  and 
dome.  Doubtless  such  destruction  was  necessary 
for  the  purpose  of  reducing  these  heathen  build- 
ings to  their  structural  atoms  in  order  to  start 
over  again  and  put  them  together  into  new  forms 
which  would  represent  the  new  God  in  his  fitting 
abode.  A  fresh  ordering  of  the  architectural 
elements  (or  atoms  if  you  please)  through  the 
new-born  world-view,  is  the  decree.  Decree  of 
whom?  That  secret  hand,  which  reaches  out  of 
darkness  at  all  great  conjunctures  of  the  World's 
History,  is  here  again  visible,  using  Architecture 
or  a  stage  of  it  for  some  grand  fulfillment,  de- 
stroying it  in  one  shape,  yet  at  the  same  time 
calling  it  up  in  another. 

Column,  arch,  vault,  dome  are  not  destroyed 
in  the  mighty  cataclysm  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
They  are  not  only  perpetuated,  but  are  endowed 
with  a  new  generative  power.  The  columnar 
and  the  arcuate  principles  of  Greece  and  Rome 
perish  not,  but  are  re-born.  Their  secular  union 
in  the  colonnaded  Arch,  in  the  colonnaded  Vault, 
and  in  the  colonnaded  Dome,  is  now  to  be  made 


THE  ROMANIC  STYLE.  409 

sacred  by  holy  marriage  inside  the  church  itself 
of  whose  inner  construction  they  become  the 
real  constituent  elements.  Throuorh  all  Romanic 
Architecture  they  move  in  a  manifold  metamor- 
phosis. What  is  it  that  has  gotten  into  them 
and  is  creating  them  over  for  some  purpose  of 
its  own? 

VII.  Romanic  Architecture  is  not  simply 
religious,  but  mediatorial,  and  expresses  the 
mediation  of  Man  with  God  through  the  Christ, 
the  God-Man.  All  who  perform  this  process  of 
mediation  truly  in  the  spirit,  can  be  saved,  that 
is,  mediated  with  God,  who  thus  becomes  uni- 
versal Himself.  Herein  lies  the  heart  of  the 
great  change  which  is  to  utter  itself  in  Romanic 
Architecture.  The  Greco-Roman  God  or  Gods 
remain  tribal  or  at  best  national,  and  are  arrayed 
against  other  tribal  or  national  deities  of  quite 
equal  validity.  So  along  with  the  battle  of  the 
nations  was  the  battle  of  the  Gods,  poetically 
prefigured  in  ancient  Homer  but  practically 
realized  in  the  wars  of  the  Roman  Empire.  The 
Greco-Roman  deity  might  subjugate  the  other 
deities,  but  that  did  not  make  him  universal,  he 
was  still  national  and  limited.  The  deepest  cry 
of  the  Roman  imperial  world  is  for  a  universal 
God,  in  correspondence  with  the  universal  Roman 
Law  and  Empire.  But  Rome  could  not  find  Him 
or  perchance  could  not  evolve  Him  out  of  her 
national  soul;  she  clung,  often  without  faith,  to 


410  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

the  old  divinities,  to  their  rites,  and  above  all 
to  their  transmitted  temples.  Still  she  did  de- 
velop her  secular  life  with  its  architectural  struc- 
tures, which  were  not  hallowed  by  the  associa- 
tions of  the  old  religion.  Thus  her  secular 
Architecture  was  progressive  and  became  univer- 
sal, while  her  religious  Architecture  was  backward 
and  remained  ethnic.  Hence  it  comes  that  we 
rebuild  to-day  Rome's  civil  edifices  though  not 
her  religious. 

But  the  next  great  architectural  step  of  the 
ages  is  at  hand.  The  universal  deity  has  been 
found  and  proclaimed,  who  will  save  and  protect 
all  men,  and  not  simply  his  own  tribe  or  nation. 
Again  the  new  God  must  have  a  new  Home  cor- 
responding to  his  character,  and  therewith  a  new 
Architecture  begins  to  dawn  which  will  manifest 
the  same  character  as  its  indwelling  deity.  Its 
axial  point  must  be  the  mediation  of  every  human 
being  who  will  go  through  the  process  of  Christ, 
turning  away  from  his  own  narrow  heathen  or 
ethnic  life  through  repentance.  The  religious 
life  is  now  to  become  universal  (^catholic 
means  universal),  supplanting  the  universal  sec- 
ular life  of  Eome.  Moreover  the  Christian  is  to 
universalize  God  along  with  himself,  elevating 
•  Deity  also  out  of  His  tribal  or  national  limita- 
tion. Architecture,  the  priuiordial  dwelling- 
place  of  God  erected  by  Man,  must  respond  to 
this  great  spiritual  change.     The  result  will  be 


THE  BOMAmC  STYLE.  411 

that  Christianity  will  choose  from  Koman  build- 
ings, not  the  old  temple,  which  is  narrow, 
ethnic,  full  of  tribal  hate,  but  the  secular  struc- 
ture, which  has  arisen  to  be  universal  in  repre- 
senting the  outer  life  of  Law,  Society  and  State. 
But  now  this  outer  life  is  to  be  made  internal  in 
its  universality,  man  is  to  be  interiorized,  so  is 
God  and  so  is  His  architectural  Home,  which  is 
therein  to  pass  from  Eoman  to  Romanic.  Not 
without  significance  is  the  Heathen  Basilica,  the 
abode  of  secular  intercourse  between  man  and 
man  under  care  of  the  ever-present  throne  of 
Roman  justice,  taken  for  the  early  Christian 
Church. 

But  in  place  of  the  secular  judge  is  seated  the 
religious  priest  (in  the  tribuna  or  apse)  who  is 
not  simply  to  restore  to  each  his  own  (suum 
cuique)  in  temporal  things  but  is  to  restore  the 
estranged  soul  to  its  God.  This  mediatorial 
function  is  the  essential  one  in  Christianity,  and 
hence  is  the  essential  one  in  Romanic  Archi- 
tecture, which  is  fundamentally  to  build  the 
House  of  the  Christian  God.  From  this  ger- 
minal point,  the  apse  with  its  mediating  priest, 
Romanic  Architecture  is  to  unfold  and  to  pass 
through  its  process  to  its  conclusion. 

To  trace  this  process  through  all  its  diversity 
and  to  put  into  proper  relation  all  its  stages,  is 
not  an  easy  task.  Romanic  Architecture  has  an 
<3normous  multiplicity  of  forms  ranging  over  the 


412  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

widest  extent  of  territory,  from  India  to  Spain, 
and  embracing  Christian  and  Mahometan  and 
possibly  other  religions  in  its  multitudinous 
branches  great  and  small.  Still  it  has  its  fund- 
amental movement  out  of  which  springs  this 
vast  ramification,  and  which  we  shall  try  to  out- 
line before  proceeding  to  details. 

(I.)  Early  Romanic;  this  chooses  the  Basil- 
ica from  the  mass  of  Roman  buildings,  secular 
and  religious.  It  is  immediately  sacerdotal,  all 
the  aisles  lead  directly  forward  to  the  apse,  the 
place  of  the  priesthood,  the  outer  organized 
mediatorial  instrumentality  for  realizing  the 
divine  process  in  the  individual.  It  interiorizes 
within  the  enclosure  (wall  and  roof)  the  Greek 
colonnade  and  the  Roman  arch,  forming  aisles 
(three  or  ^yq)  through  which  the  laity  is  directed 
without  interruption  toward  the  clergy.  No 
central  dome  inside,  no  tower  outside,  no  de- 
veloped transept,  though  this  has  begun.  The 
exterior  of  the  church  is  disregarded ;  it  is  all 
interior  and  sacerdotal  in  its  architectural  ex- 
pression of  mediation. 

(II.)  East  Itomanic  (^Byzantine);  this  de- 
velops the  Dome  over  the  crossing  of  nave  and 
transept,  which  form  a  Greek  cross.  The  start- 
ing-point is  the  Basilica,  whose  trussed  ceiling 
and  roof  (its  weak  part)  is  supplanted  by  a 
vaulted  ceiling  and  Dome  or  Domes,  quite  as  the 
Greek  architrave  was  supplanted  by  the  Roman 


THE  BOMANIG  STYLE.  413 

Arch  in  classic  times.  Byzantine  is  still  an 
interior  Architecture,  but  it  is  dualized  inside 
into  two  centers,  the  Dome  above  and  the  Apse 
at  the  end.  The  one  suggests  God's  protection 
immediately,  and  the  other  bespeaks  clerical 
mediation.  The  Dome  is  interjected  between 
the  Entrance  and  the  Apse,  or  between  man  and 
clergy.  The  relation  of  the  individual  to  the 
Divine  is  thus  doubled  (immediate  and  mediated) 
in  the  Byzantine  Church ;  the  primitive  unity 
of  the  Basilica  is  herein  split  asunder.  Still  all 
this  is  an  inside  development ;  the  exterior  ap- 
pears, but  shows  the  interior  as  exclusive,  pre- 
senting the  outer  convex  side  of  the  inner 
inclusive  concave  surface  overhead. 

(III. )  West  Romanic  ( Romanesque) ;  this  de- 
velops the  inside,  but  more  particularly  the  out- 
side, which  now  comes  to  full  validity.  It  starts 
from  the  Basilica  whose  trussed  ceiling  and  roof 
are  supplanted  by  strongly  ribbed  vaults  and 
often  by  a  dome  inside,  while  a  system  of  towers 
is  developed  outside,  and  becomes  its  most  dis- 
tinctive expression.  The  Romanesque  not  only 
exteriorizes  the  interior,  but  gives  to  this  exterior 
an  independent  utterance,  which  imparts  to  it  a 
meaning  in  some  respects  opposite  to  that  of  the 
interior.  Still  this  separation  and  even  opposi- 
tion must  be  seen  at  last  as  parts  of  one  com- 
plete process,  of  which  the  first  stage  is  the 
external  aspect  of  the  towers  pointing  Godward 


414  ABCmTECTUBE—EUBOPEAN: 

,  immediately,  while  the  second  is  the  inner  view 
of  the  church  with  its  interior  expressing  media- 
tion ;  then  the  third  stage  is  the  vision  of  the 
same  towers  springing  out  of  the  body  of  the 
church  as  if  mediated  by  the  latter.  Thus  the 
Romanesque  rounds  itself  out  to  the  complete 
process  of  the  reconciliation  of  the  individual 
with  God,  the  stages  of  which  we  may  briefly 
designate  as  the  immediate,  the  mediating  and 
the  mediated  (the  last  returning  to  the  first  in 
the  system  of  towers). 

At  the  same  time  in  this  Romanesque  cycle  of 
construction,  a  still  greater  cycle  has  completed 
itself,  that  of  the  total  Romanic  Style,  embrac- 
ing the  Early  Romanic,  the  East  Romanic  and  the 
West  Romanic  Periods.  The  exterior  has  been 
made  interior,  then  this  interior  has  divided  and 
developed  inside,  and  finally  has  passed  to  the 
outside,  whereof  the  ultimate  result  is  that 
both  interior  and  exterior  form  one  process 
together,  which  concludes  Romanic  Architecture 
as  a  whole,  whose  end  has  been  from  the  begin- 
ning to  harmonize  the  inner  and  the  outer  by 
making  each  a  necessary  stage  of  one  process 
including  both,  yet  greater  than  both. 

The  mediation  (let  us  repeat)  of  the  individ- 
ual with  God  by  means  of  the  Church  is  the 
genetic  thought  of  Romanic  Architecture  which 
is  to  express  this  mediation  in  all  its  stages 
through    constructive   forms.     Starting    in    the 


THE  ROMANIG  STYLE.  415 

South,  it  moves  North  and  there  develops  to  its 
full  bloom,  when  it  passes  to  the  South  again 
where  it  seems  to  herald  if  not  to  call  forth  the 
next  great  architectural  change. 


■<. 


416  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 


I.  The  Early  Romanic  Period. 

In  this  Period  we  are  to  place  the  finding  and 
the  adoption  of  the  genetic  form  of  Eoniauic 
Architecture.  This  was  the  so-called  Christian 
Basilica,  undoubtedly  derived  from  the  Classic 
structure  of  the  same  name  (Basilica)  which 
was  welKknown  to  Greek  and  Eoman.  But  the 
selection  of  this  form  took  time.  Constantine 
when  he  became  a  Christian  and  started  to  erect 
Christian  Churches  over  the  Empire  employed 
the  Basilica,  which  fact  indicates  that  it  was 
already  the  accepted  type  of  the  Christian  place 
of  worship. 

The  early  Romanic  Period  may  be  considered 
to  extend  from  the  beginning  of  the  Christian 
era  to  the  reign  of  Constantine  (306-336  A.  D.). 
This  emperor  issued  his  decree  of  Milan  in  313, 
placing  Christianity  on  a  par  with  the  other 
religions  of  the  Empire.  In  323  he  became  a 
Christian  and  made  Christianity  the  religion  of 
the  Empire.  In  325  he  called  the  Council  of 
Nice  to  establish  the  dogma  of  the  Church.  In 
Ecclesiastical  Architecture  he  likewise  has  his 
dogma  or  accepted  Norm,  which  is  the  before- 
mentioned  Basilica.  Yet  the  round  Church  is 
not  excluded.  Such  is,  in  general,  the  present 
Period,  lasting  somewhat  more  than  300  years, 


THE  E ABLY  BOM ANIC  PEBIOD.  417 

and  manifesting  as  its  chief  constructive  result 
the  basic  Norm  of  Komanic  Architecture. 

I.  Constantine,  therefore,  we  may  regard  as 
the  bridge  out  of  the  Heathen  institutional  to  the 
Christian  institutional  world.  He  opposed,  then 
tolerated,  then  adopted  the  new  religion.  In 
Architecture  he  made  the  same  transition.  He 
built  at  Eome  a  Heathen  Basilica  for  secular  pur- 
poses, which  is  still  known  as  the  Basilica  of 
Constantine  (also  called  the  Basilica  of  Maxen- 
tius,  or  the  Temple  of  Peace).  He  likewise 
built,  according  to  tradition,  a  Christian  Basilica, 
old  St.  Peter's,  five-aisled,  with  trabeate  colon- 
nades, having  no  arch  or  vault,  roofed  with 
trusses  of  timber.  It  is  a  curious  fact  that  Con- 
stantine's  Heathen  Basilica  has  not  only  the 
vaulted  ceiling,  but  also  the  cross  vault  at  the 
center  supported  by  strong  piers,  which"  is  a 
complete  anticipation  of  the  internal  construc- 
tion of  the  medieval  cathedral.  But  Con- 
stantine's  Christian  Basilica  is  the  simplest 
interiorizing  of  four  parallel  Greek  colonnades, 
such  as  Greece  and  Rome  must  have  used  long 
before  the  Christian  era.  His  Christian  edifice 
seems  hundreds  of  years  behind  his  Heathen 
edifice  in  architectural  development,  if  we  ex- 
cept possibly  the  single  matter  of  interioriz- 
ing the  colonnade,  and  this  was  also  known  at 
Eome.  In  fact  the  Heathen  Basilica  of  Constan- 
tine resembled  new  St.  Peter's  in  its  architectural 


41^  ABCmTECTUn^  —  EtIROP:EAn. 

motives;  it  had  the  arched  passages,  the  vaulted 
ceilings,  the  pillared  cross  vaults,  with  perchance 
the  suggestion  of  the  dome.  And  yet  new  St. 
Peter's  is  also  called  a  Basilica,  though  more  than 
twelve  centuries  later  than  old  St.  Peter's  which 
was  torn  down  to  make  way  for  the  new  one.' 
It  may  be  said  that  the  constructive  principles 
of  Constantine's  Heathen  Basilica  are  to  enter 
into  and  transform  his  Christian  Basilica,  thus 
evolving  a  long  line  of  structures,  which  quite 
runs  through  the  whole  of  Eomanic  Architecture 
into  the  Eenascence. 

We  have,  then,  to  think,  that  the  two  Basil- 
icas, Heathen  and  Christian,  respresent  the  two 
Constantines,  Heathen  and  Christian,  with  their 
respective  worlds.  The  one  world  has  com- 
pleted its  cycle  of  development,  and  is  passing 
off  the  stage;  the  other,  though  already  born 
a  good  while,  has  just  begun  to  come  out  of  its 
hiding-places  and  to  be  openly  recognized  in  its 
own  right. 

n.  The  primitive  Christians  had  no  Archi- 
tecture, could  have  none  under  the  circum- 
stances. They  were  a  despised  and  persecuted 
band;  they  worshiped  secretly  in  private  houses, 
in  mountain  nooks,  in  caves.  They  were  driven 
inward  by  the  time  and  in  a  manner  constrained 
to  cultivate  the  inner  life ;  they  had  interiorized 
themselves  by  a  long  discipline  before  they 
interiorized  Architecture. 


TBE  EAULY  BOMAKW  PERIOD.  4l^ 

In  Rome  where  the  hand  of  authority  lay 
heavy  upon  them,  they  worshiped  in  the  burial- 
places  of  their  fellow-believers,  which  were  dug 
out  of  the  soft  sandstone  (tufa)  of  which  the 
hills  around  Rome  are  chiefly  composed.  These 
tombs  are  the  so-called  catacombs  through  whose 
dark  passages  the  modern  visitor  winds  and 
crawls  like  an  earth-worm,  till  he  reaches  a 
larger  excavated  space  resembling  a  small  chapel. 
In  this  hidden  subterranean  spot  the  Christians 
of  the  first  centuries  of  our  era  assembled  for 
worship,  amid  the  graves  of  their  martyrs,  saints, 
bishops,  as  well  as  of  their  kindred.  More  than 
forty  of  these  catacombs  are  said  to  exist  in  and 
around  Rome,  some  of  them  still  unexplored  and 
even  inaccessible.  That  of  St.  Calixtus  is  prob- 
ably the  best  known  in  recent  times. 

In  the  provinces  distant  from  the  imperial 
center  the  severity  against  the  early  Christians 
must  have  been  relaxed,  especially  in  those  local- 
ities where  they  were  in  large  numbers  if  not  in 
a  majority  Particularly  was  this  the  case  in 
the  East  and  in  Africa.  Indeed  the  earliest 
Christian  Basilicas  are  said  to  be  African.  Peo- 
ple began  to  have  public  worship  in  Christian 
edifices.  Doubtless  during  this  primitive  time 
of  experiment,  many  different  structures  were 
tried.  The  outcome  we  know:  The  Basilica 
was  selected. 

Where  did  this  selection    take    place?     Evi- 


420  ABCHITECTURE—  EUROPEAN. 

dently  not  at  Rome,  for  reasons  before  given. 
We  have  seen  it  coming  to  Rome  already  chosen 
in  the  time  of  Constantine.  It  is  our  opinion 
that  the  selection  of  the  Basilica  took  place  in 
Egypt.  In  general,  early  Christianity  has  a  dis- 
tinct Egyptian  strand  apart  from  its  Jewish 
descent.  The  close  connection  between  the 
tomb  and  temple  we  have  already  noted  in  Egyp- 
tian Architecture,  which  connection  was  repeated 
in  the  catacombs.  The  preservation  of  the  dead 
body  was  a  sacred  duty  in  Egypt,  while  the 
Greek  and  Roman  got  rid  of  it  by  cremation. 
The  doctrine  of  immortality  Egypt  cherished 
and  associated  with  the  resurrection  of  the  body. 
These  views  are  also  Christian.  We  might 
speak  of  deeper  connections:  the  belief  in  a 
divine  Trinity,  the  death  of  the  son  of  a  God  as 
an  atonement,  the  idea  of  the  Madonna  and 
child  are  all  to  be  found  in  old  Egypt. 

But  the  architectural  relation  between  the 
Egyptian  temple  and  the  Christian  Basilica  is  the 
striking  point.  Behold  the  columns  and  colon- 
nades inside  the  Hypostyle  Hall  at  Karnak ;  then 
behold  them  put  outside  in  the  Peristyle  of  the 
Greek  temple.  Look  the  third  time  and  you  will 
see  the  Greek  columns  returning  inside  the  en- 
closing wall,  where  they  once  stood  in  the 
Egyptian  temple.  To  be  sure  the  arrangement 
and  forms  of  these  Greek  columns  are  much 
changed   by   their   passage  through   the  classic 


TEE  EABLY  BOMANIC  PERIOD.  421 

world ;  still  they  belong  again  to  the  interior  of 
the  sacred  house  of  God  as  in  old  Egypt. 

It  would  seem,  therefore,  very  natural  for  the 
Egyptian  to  take  the  Basilica  in  preference  to 
other  Roman  buildings  for  his  church.  Around 
him  everywhere  he  could  observe  a  similar  spirit 
and  a  similar  practice  in  the  structures  of  his 
ancestors  scattered  through  the  Valley  of  the 
Nile.  It  would  be  a  national  gratification,  indeed 
an  act  of  his  national  consciousness  to  turn  that 
outer  Greek  Peristyle  back  into  the  interior 
where  he  must  think  that  it  belonged. 

III.  It  is  our  opinion  that  the  very  city  can  be 
pointed  out  in  which  the  first  adoption  and  trans- 
formation of  the  Basilica  took  place.  That  city 
was  Alexandria,  which  had  long  been  the  center 
for  Oriental  and  Greek  science,  art,  religion. 
Christianity  had  been  planted  there  at  an  early 
day  in  its  history,  and  had  prospered  greatly. 
Its  first  defenders,  the  Apologists,  and  also  the 
Catechists,  were  Alexandrians.  There  was  a 
great  discussion  and  development  of  the  Christian 
doctrine  at  Alexandria,  well  represented  by 
Origen.  Finally  the  formulators  and  promoters 
of  the  Nicene  creed  were  chiefly  Alexandrian 
theologians.  Nor  was  the  counter  tendency 
wanting.  Neo-Platonism,  which  sought  to  sup- 
plant Christianity  by  a  return  to  Heathen  phi- 
losophy and  religion,  arose  at  Alexandria  in  the 


422  ABGHITECTUBE^  EUROPEAN, 

school  of  Ammonius  Saccas  during  the  early  part 
of  the  third  century,  A.  D. 

In  harmony  with  this  great  religious  activity, 
there  must  have  been  a  corresponding  develop- 
ment of  Architecture.  Man  must  build  a  home 
for  his  deity,  and  the  Christians  must  have 
sought  to  erect  a  divine  abode  for  the  God  who 
united  them  and  made  them  Christians.  On 
account  of  their  numbers  and  influence  they 
were  not  interfered  with  to  as  great  an  extent  as 
they  were  at  Rome  and  elsewhere.  They  could 
at  least  select  their  building,  and  this  selection 
was  the  Basilica. 

Moreover  Alexandria  had  been  of  old  a  center 
of  constructive  ideas  in  Architecture.  It  has 
often  been  supposed  that  the  Greek  architects 
of  that  city  had  united  the  arch  and  the  col- 
umn, had  made  vaulted  ceilings,  and  had  even 
employed  the  cross  vault,  long  before  these  archi- 
tectural forms  appeared  in  JRome.  Ancient 
Egypt  knew  the  arch  and  the  vault,  and  had 
used  them,  though  chiefly  in  subterranean  con- 
struction. Thus  the  Christian  Basilica  was  in 
its  original  home  on  the  soil  of  Egypt.  The 
religious  Norm  (Dogma)  and  the  architectural 
Norm  (Basilica)  of  Christianity  naturally  sprang 
up  together  in  the  same  land,  and  doubtless  in 
the  same  city. 

So  it  comes  that  the  Emperor  Constantine 
found  both  Norms  already  prepared  for  him,  and 


THE  E ABLY  BOM ANIC  PEBIOD.  423 

adopted  them  by  imperial  fiat.  The  restraint 
being  removed,  the  Eoman  world  seemed  to  burst 
forth  at  once  into  Christian  Basilicas.  Tradition 
ascribes  five  at  Rome  to  Constantine  himself, 
who  erected  many  others  throughout  the  Em- 
pire, notably  one  at  Jerusalem  and  one  at  Bethle- 
hem. By  the  middle  of  the  Fourth  Century 
A.  D.,  the  Basilica  appears  to  have  been  as  fully 
established  as  the  Dogma. 

IV.  The  main  points  in  the  construction  of  the 
Basilica  may  be  here  mentioned.  The  colonnade 
is  interiorized  in  a  complete  enclosure  by  means 
of  wall  and  roof.  The  Eoman  colonnades  of 
the  Basilica  were  of  two  kinds,  trabeated  and 
arched;  both  were  taken  inside  the  Christian 
Basilica.  Old  St.  Peter's  had  the  trabeated 
colonnade,  old  St.  Paul's  (apparently)  the  arcu- 
ated. Both  these  had  five  aisles,  the  central 
nave  and  two  aisles  on  each  side.  The  effect  of 
the  two  was  different.  The  trabeated  colonnade 
moved  in  a  straight  line  to  the  apse  where  the 
clergy  were  seated;  the  arcuate  colonnade 
moved  to  the  same  point,  but  along  arches  which 
produced  a  wave-like  line.  The  approach  to  the 
sanctuary  can  be  rectilineal  or  curvilineal,  direct 
or  undulating,  the  outcome,  however,  is  the 
same. 

In  the  older  Basilicas  was  a  trussed  roof  of 
wood  with  beams  visible,  but  often  ornamented 
(old  St.  Peter's).     Or  there  might  be  a  flat  ceil- 


424  ABGHITEG  TUBE  — EUROPEAN. 

ing  covering  joist  and  rafters,  which  is  usually 
rthe  case  later.  Churches  are  still  built  in  imita- 
tion of  the  primitive  Basilica  with  trusses  exposed 
above.  The  old  Greeks  did  not  know  how  to 
truss  a  roof,  but  the  old  Romans  had  this 
knowledge,  and  from  them  it  passed  to  the 
Christians.  Still  such  a  covering  was  the  weak 
part  of  the  Basilica.  Hence  later  Architecture, 
both  Byzantine  and  Romanesque,  will  employ 
principally  the  vault,  though  this  too  was  some- 
times found  in  the  early  Basilica,  since  it  could 
be  directly  copied  from  the  existing  structures  of 
the  Romans.  The  trussed  roof  and  ceiling 
would  burn  and  rot,  being  of  wood,  and  also 
had  a  limited  span  like  the  old  architecture  of 
the  Greek  Orders.  Hence  it  was  supplanted  by 
the  vault. 

Opposite  to  the  entrance  was  the  semi-circular 
apse  where  the  clergy  were  seated  on  a  raised 
platform  underneath  which  was  the  crypt  con- 
taining usually  sacred  relics.  The  bishop  had 
the  highest  seat,  then  came  the  presbyters,  then 
the  assessors ;  lower  down  in  the  ajsle  was  the 
choir  with  its  one  or  two  pulpits.  Thus  the 
hierarchy  is  present,  taking  the  place  of  the 
Roman  judge  with  his  secular  Law.  It  is  mani- 
fest that  every  line  in  the  old  Basilica  leads  for- 
ward to  the  clergy.  The  aisles,  three  or  ^yq^ 
conduct  the  gaze  to  that  body  of  men  dressed  in 
their  sacerdotal  robes.     The  so-called  Triumphal 


THE  EARLY  BOMANIG  PEBIOD.  425 

Arch  in  front  of  the  apse  concentrated  the  look 
upon  them  still  more  definitely,  placing  them  in 
its  highly  decorated  circular  frame  as  if  sur- 
rounding them  with  a  orolden  aureola.  Back  of 
them  in  the  hemicycle  was  the  figure  of  Christ  in 
some  characteristic  scene  of  sacred  story  wrought 
in  mosaic  of  brilliant  colors.  For  the  early  Ba- 
silica eschewed  the  white  impassive  Greek  statue, 
and  took  to  color  as  the  expression  of  emotion 
and  subjectivity. 

V.  It  is  evident  that  here  an  overwhelming 
stress  is  placed  upon  sacerdotalism.  The  look 
is  not  carried  upward  but  forward  to  the  priests 
who  are  to  mediate  man  with  the  Mediator  whose 
image  stands  behind  them  in  colossal  outline. 
They  hold  the  keys  to  Heaven ;  man  has  appar- 
ently no  direct  communion  with  God  or  the 
Savior.  As  Christianity  is  the  mediation  of 
Man  with  God  through  Christ,  the  early  Basilica 
must  be  taken  as  the  first  Architectural  expres- 
sion of  the  fact.  There  is  no  fully  developed 
transept,  though  its  beginning  may  be  seen; 
the  whole  church  rushes  forward  to  the  apse 
without  serious  interruption.  All  Christendom 
in  the  early  Basilica  seems  hurrying  to  the  Be- 
yond, as  if  hungry  for  martyrdom.  Other-world- 
liness  is  the  great  attainment,  since  this  world  is 
surely  going  to  pieces.  The  outside  of  the 
church  was  in  general  disregarded,  or  even  con- 
temned ;  the  interior  had  in  its  aisles  the  avenues 


426  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

to  glory.  Still  the  outside  with  its  three  divi- 
sions and  its  horizontal  lines  running  from  front 
to  rear  intimated,  even  if  dimly,  the  same  fact 
as  the  inside. 

Against  this  sacerdotalism  of  the  early  Basilica, 
which  seems  almost  to  cut  the  individual  off  from 
direct  communion  with  the  Godhead,  both  the 
Byzantine  and  Eomanesque  Periods  of  Architec- 
ture will  introduce  a  modification  which  may  be 
deemed  a  kind  of  structural  protest,  that  of  the 
Dome  and  Tower.  In  this  respect  likewise  the 
early  Basilica  seems  to  bear  the  impress  of  its 
Egyptian  origin,  for  Egypt  was  a  sacerdotal 
land,  if  there  ever  was  one. 

The  ground-plan  of  the  early  Basilica  was  an 
oblong  like  that  of  a  Greek  temple,  rectilineal 
and  rectangular.  But  besides  this  leading  form 
the  primitive  Christians  had  the  round  Church, 
which  was  likewise  derived  and  sometimes  adopted 
from  a  Heathen  structure.  The  old  Latin  form 
was  preserved  as  well  as  the  old  Greek,  both  of 
them  passing  over  into  Christian  edifices.  Con- 
stantine  did  not  neglect  the  round  building,  the 
circular  tombs  of  his  mother  Helena  and  of  his 
daughter  Constantia  (now  the  church  of  Santa 
Costanza)  are  still  to  be  seen  at  Rome,  though 
of  small  proportions.  But  San  Stefano  rotondo 
seems  to  have  been  built  at  a  somewhat  later 
time  (468-83)  m  rivalry  with  St.  Peter's  and 
St.  Paul's  as  to  magnitude,     So  the  curvilineal 


THE  EABLY  ROMANIC  PEBIOD.  427 

stream  runs  separately  alongside  of  the  recti- 
lineal, though  much  inferior  in  size ;  hereafter 
the  two  will  coalesce  and  produce  new  forms. 

Nor  must  we  forget  another  shape,  the  octag- 
onal, which  will  interweave  itself  into  coming 
structures.  This  form  was  used  for  Baptisteries, 
of  which  a  very  early  example,  attributed  to  Con- 
stantine,  is  at  the  Lateran  in  Rouie.  San  Vitale 
of  Ravenna,  which  has  au  octagonal  form  rising 
into  the  rounded  Dome,  is  later  but  suggests  the 
cominff  interaction  and  coalescence  of  the  straight 
and  the  curved  lines.  The  square  ground-plan 
with  Dome  above  is  also  found,  especially  in 
early  Syrian  churches. 

Thus  we  see  in  early  Christian  Architecture 
the  two  tendencies:  the  horizontal,  rectilineal, 
forward  one  moving  to  the  apse,  to  the  priest- 
hood, and  the  vertical,  circular,  upward  one  mov- 
ing toward  Heaven  or  God  directly.  There  is  no 
doubt  that  the  first  tendency  is  the  dominating 
power  in  the  early  churches,  specially  at  Rome. 
Still  the  second  tendency  is  present  and  at  work, 
and  will  assert  itself  strongly  in  the  development 
of  the  coming  Architecture,  both  in  the  East 
and  the  West. 

The  transept  in  the  old  Basilica  gets  suffi- 
ciently developed  to  show  the  form  of  the  Latin 
cross  in  its  ground-plan,  which  will  pass  to  the 
Romanesque.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Byzantine 
will  employ  the  completed  transept    for   mani- 


428  ABC  HITEG  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

festing  the  Greek  cross  in  its  ground-plan.  Both 
of  these  forms  thus  evolve  out  of  the  old  Basil- 
ica, and  set  to  going  the  two  succeeding  Periods 
of  Komanic  Architecture  (Byzantine  and  Rom- 
anesque), representing  the  Greek  and  the  Latin 
Churches.  Hence  we  may  also  call  these  Periods 
by  the  names  of  East  Romanic  and  West  Ro- 
manic, according  to  the  locality  of  their  greatest 
prevalence. 

Moreover  we  may  see  in  this  separation  of  the 
old  Basilica  into  two  architectural  streams  the 
same  spiritual  tendency  which  brought  about  the 
separation  into  the  two  Churches,  Greek  and 
Latin,  or  Eastern  and  Western.  The  great  ques- 
tion of  Theology  in  that  age  was  the  relation  and 
function  of  Father  and  Son  in  the  Trinity.  The 
East  (  as  was  natural )  insisted  more  upon  the  mono- 
theistic element,  or  that  of  the  Father.  From  this 
spiritual  fact  springs  the  Byzantine  Dome,  sym- 
bol of  God  Himself,  who  has  the  emphatic  place 
in  the  Greek  Church.  Herein,  too,  we  see  the 
open  road  leading  to  Mahometanism,  which  is 
the  denial  of  the  Son.  But  the  Latin  Church  in- 
sisted upon  the  Son  (in  iheJiUoque  controversy), 
and  thus  asserted  and  preserved  the  triune  move- 
ment of  the  Universe.  Hence  the  Romanesque 
when  it  accepts  the  Byzantine  Dome,  will  by  no 
means  give  it  the  emphasis  which  it  has  in  the 
East.  Thus  the  theological  and  architectural 
movements    have    their   inner    correspondence. 


THE  EARLY  BOMANIC  PEUIOD.  429 

All  Romanic  Architecture  being  sacerdotal,  Theol- 
ogy must  ultimately  determine  it.  Moreover 
Theology,  being  the  fundamental  spiritual  dis- 
cipline of  the  Middle  Ages  (not  Philosophy  or 
Science),  will  necessarily  give  content  not  only 
to  the  architectonic  but  to  all  Art. 


450  AnCBtTBCTUBE  —  EVMOPtlA^. 


II.  The   East   Romanic  (Byzantine)  Period. 

Primarily  the  division  of  Romanic  Architec- 
ture corresponds  to  the  division  of  the  Roman 
Empire  into  eastern  and  western.  In  Byzan- 
tium (Constantinople)  lay  the  active  separation 
from  Rome,  which  was  the  deed  of  Constantine. 
We  have,  therefore,  to  consider  the  present  as 
the  separative  stage  of  the  Romanic  Period, 
which  in  its  development  disrupts  itself  into 
East  and  West.  Underlying  Byzantine  Archi- 
tecture as  well  as  Byzantine  Institutions  is  the 
division  of  the  Roman  Empire,  out  of  which 
division  they  sprang. 

But,  the  deed  of  separation  having  been  ac- 
complished, there  followed  just  the  opposite 
tendency:  union,  concentration,  consolidation. 
Byzantine  Institutions,  after  the  removal  from 
Rome,  will  show  an  extreme  centralization.  By- 
zantine Architecture,  though  born  of  the  early 
Romanic  Basilica,  will  turn  from  it  and  alter  it 
profoundly,  making  it  more  unified  and  central- 
ized. Yet  here  too  the  process  will  again  enter. 
After  a  time  of  centripetalism  there  will  follow 
a  centrifugal  epoch  of  Byzantine  Architecture, 
similar  to  what  we  have  already  repeatedly  seen 
in  the  Hellenistic  and  in  the  Roman  Imperial 
Period  of  the  Classic  World. 

I.   The  architectural  unity   of  the  Byzantine 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEUlOD.  431 

Period  is  made  very  emphatic  by  the  fact  that  it 
has  really  but  one  great  original  structure,  St. 
Sophia's  at  Constantinople.  Especially  Chris- 
tian Byzantine  construction  has  nothing  of  a 
very  high  order  except  the  one  building.  The 
Mohammedan  off-shoot  produced  some  gorgeous 
examples  in  India  and  Spain.  And  St.  Mark's 
is  a  beautiful  copy  with  many  original  touches. 
But  among  Greek  churches,  St.  Sophia's  seems 
to  stand  quite  alone,  representing  them  all.  We 
think  of  it  chiefly  when  we  speak  of  Byzantine 
Architecture,  so  completely  has  it  concentrated 
within  itself  the  other  members  of  its  kind. 

Very  different  was  the  case  in  the  old-Greek, 
heathen  time.  Then  the  Parthenon  was  doubt- 
less the  first  temple  of  Greece,  but  the  first 
among  many  nearly  its  equals.  Every  town 
sought  to  have  its  Parthenon  both  in  size  and 
splendor,  just  as  each  City-State  asserted  its 
political  autonomy  against  any  central  Greek 
authority.  But  now  Constantinople  is  the  one 
seat  of  power,  which  is,  moreover,  unified  in  one 
Will.  Greek  autocracy  has  succeeded  Greek 
autonomy.  Such  is  the  great  institutional  change 
in  Hellas  which  seems  to  have  turned  to  its  own 
opposite  after  passing  through  the  long  Roman 
training  of  subjugation  to  an  external  power.  The 
one  outer  has  become  the  one  inner  authority, 
Greece  has  now  one  center  instead  of  a  hundred. 

Such  is  the  institutional  fact  which  gets  itself 


482  ABCHITEC  TUBE—  E  UROPEAN. 

built  in  Byzantine  Architecture,  particularly  in 
St.  Sophia's,  which  seizes  the  Koman  construc- 
tive principle,  the  Arch  with  its  forms,  and 
unifies  them  all  in  a  new  and  deeper  way. 
Greece  is  again  independent,  but  not  after  the 
old  fashion.  We  see  its  historic  sweep;  auton- 
omous, subjugated,  autocratic;  or  internally 
separated  (into  City-States),  externally  united 
(by  Rome),  internally  united  (in  the  Byzantine 
Empire).  This  last  is  mirrored  in  St.  Sophia's, 
is  indeed  the  idea  which  creates  the  structure. 

Nor  do  we  find  any  great  architectural  totality 
composed  of  many  similarly  noble  buildings  at 
Constantinople  around  St.  Sophia's.  Such  a 
totality  of  great  Architecture  we  saw  on  the 
Acropolis  at  Athens  brought  together  in  the 
presence  of  the  Parthenon.  Also  we  recall  the 
large  number  of  important  public  structures 
that  clustered  about  the  Roman  Forum.  And 
in  ancient  Egypt  Thebes  had  its  group  of  vast 
temples.  But  in  this  respect  St.  Sophia's  seems 
solitary  in  its  worth  and  greatness.  Or  possibly 
we  may  say  that  it  forms  a  group  by  itself. 

II.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  St.  Sophia's  is 
architecturally  as  autocratic  as  is  the  Byzantine 
Monarch.  It  was  built  at  the  command  of  the 
Emperor  Justinian  in  532-7  A.  D.,  some  two 
centuries  after  the  time  of  Constantine.  The 
names  of  its  architects  are  Anthemius  of  Tralles 
and  Isodorus  of  Miletus. 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  438 

Justinian  was  the  Emperor  who  first  brought 
into  order  the  vast  mass  of  the  Eoman  Law, 
which  was  before  his  time  in  a  disorganized  con- 
dition. He  did  not  make  that  Law  but  put  into 
it  a  new  order  which  has  lasted.  In  like  manner 
St.  Sophia's  draws  all  its  chief  architectural 
forms  from  Kome  —  arch,  vault,  and  dome  — 
but  organizes  them  into  a  totally  new  edifice.  It 
may  be  said  that  the  Greek  mind  of  the  Byzan- 
tine epoch  showed  its  new  genius  in  the  power  of 
organization  which  seems  to  have  been  largely 
lost  by  the  Eoman  in  Italy. 

Another  thought  comes  up  in  the  present 
connection:  St.  Sophia's  being  the  most  subtle, 
complex,  intricate  structure  in  existence,  may 
be  deemed  the  architectural  embodiment  of 
Greek  Theology,  a  vast  and  fine-spun  spiritual 
edifice,  which  had  been  in  the  process  of  con- 
struction during  the  two  hundred  years  between 
Constantine  and  Justinian.  The  Nicene  Creed 
starts  with  the  birth  of  the  Eastern  Empire  and 
lays  the  foundation  for  the  immense  fabric  of 
Greek  theological  speculation,  whose  intricacies 
seem  to  be  present  in  the  details  of  St.  Sophia's 
over-canopied  with  its  light  airy  Dome,  which 
hangs-  suspended  from  Heaven  by  a  chain,  as 
ancient  Procopius  said. 

The  name  itself  {Hagia  Sophia ^  Holy  Wis- 
dom) is  properly  an  abstract  term,  not  that  of  a 
person,  though  we  still  hear  the  name  Sophia. 

28 


434  ARGHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAl^, 

This  Holy  Wisdom  was  to  the  Greek  mind  of 
that  age  Theology,  which  is  suggested  in  the 
very  title  of  St.  Sophia's,  as  well  as  by  its 
constructive  character.  Nor  can  we  help  think- 
ing of  its  kinship  with  Greek  Philosophy,  also  a 
cunning  structure  which  is  a  Wisdom  (Sophia), 
and,  even  if  heathen,  is  the  mother  of  Greek 
Theology. 

The  last  great  original  product  of  the  Greek 
race  is  this  church  of  Constantinople  —  a  piece 
of  Architecture,  not  painting,  not  sculpture, 
not  poetry,  not  history.  Upon  this  one  Art  and 
its  single  manifestation  the  artistic  genius  of  the 
Christian  Greek  concentrated  itself,  showing  a 
very  different  creative  power  from  his  Heathen 
ancestor,  who  revealed  his  excellence  in  all  the 
Arts  with  equal  skill.  The  Hellenic  people  pos- 
sess again  their  own  government,  having  recon- 
structed the  Eoman  imperial  State  after  their 
own  present  political  ideal.  It  is  now  Greece 
hellenizingRome,  not  Rome  imperializing  Greece, 
as  was  the  case  in  Hadrian's  time  for  instance. 
Moreover  it  is  Christian  Greece  which  takes  up 
and  makes  over  Rome  in  her  own  way,  institu- 
tionally first  and  then  architecturally.  We  must 
always  recollect  that  this  new  State  was  largely 
the  result  of  conscious  reflection.  Constantine 
chose  it  and  chose  its  capital,  after  having  tried 
Rome  for  many  years.  Constantinople  did  not 
grow,    but   was   made,   it    sprang   from  human 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  436 

calculation.  Undoubtedly  it  evolved  in  the 
course  of  history,  still  it  had  more  thought  in 
its  origination  and  character  than  probably  any 
other  real  State  ancient  or  modern  with  the 
exception  of  the  American  (as  formulated  in  its 
Constitution).  Very  different  is  the  Byzantine 
Empire  in  details  from  the  ideal  Kepublic  of 
Plato,  or  the  ideal  City-State  of  Aristotle;  still 
it  is  cognate  in  being  a  Greek  political  conception 
realized,  in  having  the  Idea  give  shape  to  the 
Fact.  How  well  it  performed  its  function  is 
seen  in  the  outcome ;  it  lasted  more  than  a  thou- 
sand years,  and  defended  itself  and  Europe  dur- 
ing that  time  against  Barbarism  and  Islamism. 
Constantine  built  the  first  Christian  State  with 
•the  aid  of  Greek  brains,  built  it  autocratically, 
by  the  fiat  of  a  single  will,  from  the  foundation 
up,  quitting  the  old  Eoman  capital,  and  shun- 
ning old  Greek  capitals  ( as  Athens  and  Alexan- 
dria). We  can  say  that  he  built  it  ideally,  in 
the  Greek  fashion,  yet  practically  suited  to  the 
needs  of  the  age. 

It  is  this  subtle  reflection  in  all  the  niceties  of 
construction,  this  spirit  of  the  finest  calculation 
and  adjustment  which  we  observe  and  wonder  at 
in  St.  Sophia's.  Such  a  structure  could  be 
thought  out  beforehand  and  erected  only  by  a 
highly  developed  people  whose  minds  had  been 
subtilized  for  ages  with  the  intricacies  of  meta- 
physical speculation.     The  Greek  brain  became 


436  ABCEITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN, 

infinitely  ramified  with  the  hibyrinthine  sinuosi- 
ties of  Greek  Philosophy  and  Theology,  with 
which  it  occupied  itself  internally  when  driven 
out  of  practical  life  byEoman  domination.  But 
of  a  sudden  the  new  political  field  opens  and  the 
Greek  starts  to  realizing  himself  once  more  in 
freedom,  giving  a  picture  of  his  new  self  in 
St.  Sophia's. 

III.  At  this  point  lies  the  great  difference 
between  the  character  and  development  of  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Empires.  The  latter  had 
to  be  built  up  anew  from  barbarous  tribes,  the 
Northern  invaders ;  the  former  was  composed  of 
a  people  with  an  old  and  highly  developed  civili- 
zation. The  result  was  that  the  West  had  to  go 
through  the  terrible  process  of  destruction, 
before  there  could  be  any  reconstruction ;  while 
the  East  began  to  build  its  institutional  edifice  at 
once,  having  the  substructure  already  laid  in  the 
intelligence  of  a  great  nation.  Horde  after 
horde  of  Barbarians  had  to  overrun  and  break 
Italy  to  pieces  before  they  began  assimilating 
her  culture  and  civilization.  Thus  the  West  was 
torn  to  shreds  while  the  East  remained  compara- 
tively whole  during  the  epoch  of  Northern  inva- 
sion and  the  consequent  disintegration. 

But  the  time  came  when  the  Eastern  Empire 
was  in  its  turn  to  be  overwhelmed  by  Barba- 
rians. Constantinople  was  taken  by  the  Turks 
in    1453  and  thus  underwent  the  fate  of  Western 


THE  BYZANTINE  PERIOD.  437 

Europe,  which  had  meanwhile  built  up  a  new 
civilization,  and  with  it  a  new  Architecture, 
upon  the  ruins  of  the  old  Roman  Empire.  This 
regeneration  took  place  during  the  Middle  Ages, 
through  which  the  Byzantine  world  never  passed 
in  the  Western  sense.  It  may,  however,  be 
passing  through  its  dark  Ages  now,  after  having 
been  the  main  bridge,  during  our  medieval 
period,  from  the  ancient  to  the  modern  world. 
We  shall  find  the  Greek  fugitives  from  the 
Turkish  invasions  to  have  been  a  chief  source 
of  the  Eenascence,  since  they  brought  along  with 
their  other  culture  their  building  traditions, 
which  had  descended  uninterruptedly  from  an- 
tiquity. Thus  Byzantine  civilization  is  the  inter- 
mediate one  between  the  old  Roman  and  our 
own.  And  Byzantine  Architecture  we  shall  find 
occupying  the  same  general  position. 

IV.  The  Teutonic  tribes  which  settled  in  the 
countries  of  the  Western  Empire,  spoke  Latin, 
abandoning  their  own  barbarous  speech.  The 
result  was  the  formation  of  the  modern  Romanic 
tongues,  which  spring  from  the  highly  organ- 
ized language  of  Rome  passed  through  or  per- 
chance crushed  throuojh  an  uncivilized  organ  of 
utterance.  Thus  the  Latin  of  Cicero  and  Tacitus, 
so  finely  ordered  and  even  artificial,  had  to  be 
broken  into  ruins,  like  the  Roman  Architecture, 
ere  it  could  be  reorganized  into  a  new  system  of 
vocables.     Quite  the   opposite  was   the  case  in 


438  ABC  HITEG  TUBE  —  EUBOPEAN, 

the  Byzantine  world.  There  the  old  Greek 
tongue  even  if  somewhat  changed,  held  its  own 
essentially,  being  spoken  still  by  Greeks,  and 
not  forced  through  the  mutilation  of  barbarous 
mouths.  The  Empire  now  speaks  Greek,  com- 
pels the  Koman  to  speak  Greek,  puts  even 
Eoman  Law  into  Greek.  In  general,  Roman 
forms  are  now  Hellenized,  or  rather  Byzantin- 
ized,  being  wrought  over  through  the  Greek 
Christian  and  transformed  by  the  new  spirit. 

This  is  the  same  process  which  can  be  observed 
in  St.  Sophia's;  it  seizes  the  architectural  forms 
of  the  Roman  Empire  and  makes  them  talk 
Greek — Byzantine  Greek,  not  classic.  It  takes 
the  Roman  Arch  with  all  its  Roman  offspring  — 
vault,  cross  vault  and  dome  —  and  unites 
them  into  an  organic  Whole,  thus  completing 
the  arcuate  development.  Byzantine  Archi- 
tecture is  the  system  of  Arches  united  in 
a  single  structure  as  in  St.  Sophia's  which 
may  thus  be  deemed  an  architectural  corpus  juris. 
This  is  the  great  advance  upon  Rome,  which 
employed  all  arcuate  forms  but  never  organ- 
ized them  into  one  totality.  Heathen  Greek 
Architecture  completed  the  trabeate-columnar 
principle;  but  now  Christian  Greek  Architec- 
ture completes  the  arcuate-columnar  principle, 
for  St.  Sophia's  has  columns  also,  in  fact  a  sys- 
tem of  colonnaded  Arches. 

The  culmination  of  Byzantine  Architecture  is 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  439 

the  Dome ;  still  it  is  not  all  Dome.  Too  often 
it  is  regarded  as  merely  domical  and  is  so  called 
by  writers.  This  may  be  misleading.  The 
Dome  should  not  have  the  sole  stress  but  the 
system  before  mentioned,  which  is  the  total  pro- 
cess of  the  Arch,  whereof  the  Dome  is  only  a 
member,  even  if  the  most  prominent  member. 
Externally  also  the  Dome  is  strongly  centralized 
by  means  of  half -domes  and  vaults  diminishing 
in  size  and  height  outwardly.  We  can  continue 
to  say  that  the  Byzantine  characteristic  is  the 
Dome,  but  we  ought  not  to  forget  the  system 
of  which  it  is  the  culminating  part. 

V.  We  are  now  ready  to  take  a  look  at  the 
interior  of  St.  Sophia's.  And  that  first  look  — 
whither  is  it  carried?  To  the  center  of  the  build- 
ing where  is  the  Dome  resting  upon  four  large 
Arches,  and  forming  with  them  the  pendentives, 
or  arched  spherical  triangles.  These  large 
Arches  in  turn  stand  upon  four  large  pillars. 
Between  these  pillars  at  the  sides  of  the  main 
aisle  run  two  tiers  of  colonnaded  Arches,  one 
above  the  other.  Now  we  begin  to  see  the  sys- 
tem of  Arches :  the  small  colonnaded  Arch 
below,  the  large  pillared  Arch  above,  and  then 
the  Dome  on  top,  all  of  which  are  united  into  an 
architectural  organism. 

Very  different  was  our  first  look  into  the 
Basilica.  Then  the  eye  was  carried  forward  to 
the  apse  at  the  end  of  the  main  aisle  where  sat 


440  ABCHITECTUBE—EUBOPEAN. 

the  clergy.  This  fact  points  to  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  Greek  and  Latin  doctrines.  Sacer- 
dotalism never  had  the  supremacy  in  the  Eastern 
which  it  had  in  the  Western  Church.  The 
Greek  priesthood  never  obtained  control  of  the 
State,  and  thus  never  had  the  final  authority  in 
secular  affairs.  The  old  Hellenic  political  sense 
still  prevailed.  The  Dome  carries  the  eye  up- 
ward, the  Basilica  forward ;  the  one  belongs  here 
and  suggests  the  eternal  Now,  the  other  belongs 
beyond,  and  suggests  the  future.  In  the  one 
case  the  clergy  is  more  the  means,  in  the  other 
case  it  is  more  the  end. 

Thus  in  the  Byzantine  structure  every  part 
moves  to  and  rays  out  from  the  common  center, 
and  its  unity  is  its  striking  characteristic.  St. 
Sophia's  was  intended  to  be  the  central  church 
of  Christendom,  and  was  built  to  show  construc- 
tively such  centralization.  And  for  a  time  it 
probably  had  no  rival.  Even  Italy  became  a 
portion  of  the  Byzantine  Empire  of  Justinian, 
the  builder  of  St.  Sophia's,  which  shows  better 
than  any  other  artistic  work,  the  palingenesis  of 
Greece  as  Christian.  The  most  original,  the 
most  genetic,  and  architecturally  the  most  impor- 
tant church  of  Christendom  was  St.  Sophia's, 
though  its  destiny  was  to  fall  into  the  hands  of 
the  Moslem,  and  to  be  consecrated  to  the  service 
of  an  alien  religion.  We  shall  see,  however, 
that  the  fountain-head  of  Mahometan  Architec- 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  441 

ture  was  mainly  St.  Sophia's  with  its  Dome,  and 
that  Islamism  was  in  a  sense  getting  back  to  its 
own  in  Constantinople. 

Looking  at  St.  Sophia's  from  the  outside,  we 
experience  disappointment.  We  behold  an  in- 
organic mass  of  domes,  half-domes,  and  arches  of 
various  sizes  huddling  together  and  guarded  now 
by  the  four  Turkish  minarets  standing  like 
watch-dogs  at  each  corner.  The  convex  outside 
of  the  domical  system  here  has  a  very  different 
effect  from  that  of  its  concave  inside ;  the  pro- 
tection is  changed  rather  into  rejection;  unless 
you  get  within  you  are  spurned  of  God.  In  this 
regard  the  external  Romanesque  towers  make  a 
far  more  sympathetic,  we  may  say  more  human 
impression,  and  so  is  more  artistic  externally. 

Still  the  externals  of  St.  Sophia  are  by  no 
means  so  neglected,  or  so  expressionless  as  those 
of  the  old  Basilica.  We  see  the  arched  forms 
pushing  through  at  all  points  to  the  outside,  and 
thus  coming  to  utterance,  which  will  be  more 
completely  developed  in  the  Romanesque,  and 
specially  in  the  Gothic. 

There  are  several  points  of  view  from  which 
we  may  organize  the  multifarious  phenomena  of 
Byzantine  Architecture,  embracing  as  it  does  a 
variety  of  races  and  religions.  To  our  mind  its 
fundamental  process  can  best  be  seen  by  viewino- 
first  its  Concentration  at  Constantinople,  then 
its  grand  Separation  and   Dispersion   from  the 


442  ABCHITEGTVRE—EUBOPEAN, 

center,  and  thirdly  its  Re-union  with  Latin 
Europe,  whence  it  originally  came.  This  move- 
ment shows  it  going  around  the  entire  Mediter- 
ranean and  engirdling  the  same  with  a  circle  of 
Byzantine  edifices. 

A.  The  Byzantine  Concentration. 

The  Basilica  must  be  regarded  as  the  chief 
starting-point  of  Byzantine  Architecture.  Con- 
stantine  built  regular  Basilicas  at  Rome  in  the 
West,  at  Jerusalem  (the  church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre)  and  at  Bethlehem  in  the  East,  be- 
sides others  at  Constantinople  and  elsewhere. 
But  gradually  into  this  dominant  rectilineal  struc- 
ture, the  curvilineal  element  began  to  be  intro- 
duced and  to  take  possession.  Especially  the 
Dome  at  the  center  appealed  to  the  Eastern 
feeling  of  the  one  authority,  yea  of  the  one  God. 
Oriental  Christianity  has  in  it  a  decided  mono- 
theistic tendency  which  makes  its  transition  to 
Islamism  not  so  great  or  so  difficult  a  step  as  a 
person  might  think.  The  Oriental  Christian 
took  the  Dome  as  deeply  concordant  with  his 
religious  instinct,  and  made  it  his  chief  construc- 
tive expression,  his  architectural  symbol. 

The  primitive  (early  Romanic )  Basilica  is,  then, 
to  be  united  and  ingrown  with  the  Dome,  along 
with  Arch  and  Vault,  and  the  evolution  of  By- 
zantine Architecture  will  show  this  process.     It 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEEIOD.  443 

takes  place  in  the  200  years  which  lie  between 
Constantine's  Basilicas  and  St.  Sophia's.  Both 
these  forms,  the  Basilica  and  Dome,  are  imperial 
Roman,  even  if  the  Dome  had  long  been  known 
in  the  East,  and  was  simply  going  back  to  its 
old  home.  Still  it  was  the  Eoman  Dome  as  em- 
ployed for  overroofing  interiors,  which  inspired 
the  Byzantine  architect,  and  gave  him  his  con- 
structive method. 

Where  did  this  mutual  intergrowth  of  Basil- 
ica and  Dome  begin  to  show  itself?  Hard  to 
tell;  like  all  origins  it  is  trapped  in  obscurity. 
Naturally  we  think  of  the  Orient,  the  original 
home  of  Arch,  Vault  and  Dome;  particularly 
the  land  of  the  Nile  suggests  itself  again.  But 
as  far  as  the  monuments  at  present  known 
indicate  the  path,  we  have  to  go  to  Syria.  Among 
the  early  Christian  structures  described  by  Count 
de  Vogiie  in  his  work  on  Central  Syria,  is  a 
chapel  in  Omm-es-Zeitun,  which  has  a  Dome 
whose  date  is  given  as  282  A.  D.  This  is 
declared  to  be  the  earliest  instance  of  a  Christian 
Dome.  In  the  same  work  are  other  examples  of 
the  growing  combination  between  Basilica  and 
Dome  in  various  stages  (Liibke,  Geschichte  der 
Archiiectur) ,  The  round  in  the  square  seems 
to  have  been  the  favorite  form. 

For  the  next  important  monument  we  have  to 
come  West.  At  Ravenna  is  the  Tomb  of  Galla 
Placidia  (420  A.  D.),  which  has   a  Dome  over 


444  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

the  crossing  of  nave  and  transept  with  penden- 
tives  and  arches,  yet  its  ground-plan  is  that  of  a 
Latin  cross.  Here,  then,  is  a  union  of  leading 
Greek  and  Latin  forms  in  one  structure,  Kavenna 
being  the  Italian  city  where  these  forms  met  and 
intermingled  before  separating  again.  So  this 
Tomb  of  Galla  Placidia  (now  a  church)  has  sug- 
gestions both  of  St.  Sophia's  and  St.  Peter's. 

Another  remarkable  Byzantine  monument  at 
Kavenna  is  San  Vitale,  an  octagonal  church 
rising  up  to  a  Dome  with  pendentives  (526-47 
A.  D.,  hence  conteAporary  with  St.  Sophia's). 
The  church  of  St.  Sergius  and  Bacchus 
at  Constantinople  (527  A.  D.)  has  an  inner 
octagon  rising  to  the  Dome,  while  its  outer  form 
is  square.  St.  Sophia's  has  a  long,  central  aisle 
showinor  overhead  the  Dome  and  the  two  lar^e 
half  Domes  in  succession.  Finally  there  is 
St.  Mark's  at  Venice,  whose  plan  is  in  the  form 
of  a  Greek  cross  with  equal  arms,  over  each  of 
which  is  a  Dome,  then  there  is  the  central  Dome. 
This  form  was  taken  from  a  church  built  by 
Justinian  at  Constantinople  (that  of  the  Holy 
Apostles)  which  was  destroyed  by  a  Sultan  in 
the  Fifteenth  Century. 

Such  is  a  slight  outline  of  the  development  of 
Byzantine  Architecture  and  its  concentration  at 
Constantinople  in  the  time  of  Justinian,  who  built 
the  best  examples  of  its  leading  forms  in  which 
the  round  element  strongly  dominates.     This  is 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  445 

just  the  opposite  of  what  the  ancient  (heathen) 
Greek  preferred,  since  he  rejected  the  Arch  and 
chose  the  rectilineal  and  rectangular.  Still  the 
Byzantine  (Christian)  Greek  starts  with  the 
rectangular  ground-plan,  usually  a  square  or 
nearly  so ;  but,  as  the  building  rises  from  its 
foundation  upwards,  he  transforms  it  into  the 
curvilineal.  St.  Sophia's,  as  it  lies  on  the  earth, 
is  nearly  square;  it  employs  a  column  (heathen 
Greek)  to  rise  from  the  earth ;  then  its  system 
of  small  and  large  Arches  begins,  mounting  up 
to  Vault  and  Dome.  The  whole  seems  to  indi- 
cate an  ascent  out  of  the  terrestrial  and  heathen 
into  the  celestial  and  Christian,  or  the  transition 
from  the  ancient  to  the  Byzantine  Greek.  The 
column  supports  not  an  architrave  but  an  Arch, 
the  trabeate-columnar  Norm  of  old  Hellas 
being  rejected  from  the  building. 

The  Byzantine  column  sprang  from  the  Co- 
rinthian with  foliage  sprouting  out  over  the 
capital.  But  the  chief  fact  is  that  the  round 
passes  into  the  trapeziform,  or  the  wedge  shape. 
Why  this  change?  It  indicates  the  weight  com- 
ing from  above,  yet  not  from  the  horizontal 
architrave  but  from  the  arch,  while  the  form  of 
the  capital  suggests  the  voussoir. 

Thus  the  Greek  artists  transform  the  column 
again  on  account  of  its  new  function  as  arch- 
supporting,  and  it  is  made  to  speak  a  new  lan- 
guage in  a  number  of  ways.     This  was  not  done 


446  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

at  Rome,  the  Corinthian  column  there  kept  the 
same  form  as  before,  though  its  duty  of  support 
had  changed  in  character.  But  the  Greek  Arch- 
itect was  not  free  at  Rome,  he  had  no  national 
spirit  to  embody,  often  he  was  a  literal  slave 
bought  and  sold  in  the  market.  He  only  imi- 
tated for  his  master.  But  in  the  Byzantine  age 
he  had  again  a  Greek  institutional  world,  hence 
he  is  again  creative. 

Is  there  any  change  in  the  body  of  the  Byzan- 
tine column  as  well  as  in  the  capital,  owing  to 
this  new  function?  It  is  now  utilized  to  the 
full,  or  may  be,  by  the  Arch;  in  fact  the  Arch 
outstrips  it,  overwhelms  the  Greek  column  in  its 
very  home,  and  demands  a  huge  pier  or  buttress 
for  its  support.  Just  in  St.  Sophia's  we  find  the 
four  large  central  Arches  no  longer  placed  on 
corresponding  columns,  which  would  have  to  be 
Egyptian  in  colossality.  So  the  Greek  in  St. 
Sophia's  kept  his  columns  of  moderate  size  for 
the  galleries  between  the  piers.  The  Dome 
resting  on  the  large  Arches  produced  the  four 
pendentives  or  spherical  triangular  spaces  which 
seem  to  hang  down  from  the  rim  of  the  Dome 
between  the  large  Arches,  and  which  furnish  a 
unique  field  for  figures  in  Mosaic. 

So  Byzantine  spirit,  gathering  itself  together 
at  Constantinople,  reveals  a  new  Greek  birth, 
showing  a  new  centripetal  energy  similar  to  that 
first  one  which  we  saw  starting  from  the  border 


TE^  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  447 

of  Hellas  more  than  500  years  before  Christ  and 
lasting  some  200  years  till  it  culminated  in  the 
Parthenon.  From  Constantine  till  the  erection 
of  St.  Sophia's  is  also  a  period  of  about  200 
years,  though  more  than  850  years  lie  between 
these  two  supreme  Greek  edifices,  both  of  them 
being  products  of  a  grand  concentration  and  re- 
newal of  the  Greek  national  spirit.  And  here 
let  the  fact  be  stated  that  this  Byzantine  work  of 
Architecture  will  also  have  its  period  of  impar- 
tation  and  dispersion  (like  the  Hellenistic  period), 
in  which  it  will  pass  to  and  be  adopted  by  other 
religions  and  other  races,  Aryan,  Semitic  and 
Turanian,  making  it  the  most  influential  type  of 
construction  that  ever  existed,  with  the  possible 
exception  of  the  old  Hellenic.  Both  are  Greek: 
the  one  Greek  Heathen,  the  other  Greek  Chris- 
tian, Architecture.  The  one  is  the  triumph  of 
the  straight  line,  the  other  of  the  curved  line. 
The  one  develops  the  outside,  the  other  the  inside. 
The  Arch,  rejected  by  the  one,  is  the  basic  prin- 
ciple of  the  other.  The  one  is  a  simple  oblong 
in  plan,  the  other  is  an  oblong  (nearly  square) 
crossed  inside ;  thus  it  takes  up  within  itself  in 
reconciliation  a  double  set  of  lines  at  right  angles 
to  each  other. 

The  Greek  reaches  now  political  unity  through 
Rome,  and  religious  unity  through  the  Church. 
Never  before  the  Byzantine  State  was  Hellas 
politically  united;  it  fought  its  great  wars,  myth- 


448  ARGHITEG  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN, 

ical  and  historical,  Trojan  and  Persian,  without  a 
national  union.  Still  the  Greek  remains  more 
political  than  religious  at  Constantinople.  The 
State  controlled  the  Church  and  herein  was  dif- 
ferent from  the  Papacy.  Aristotle  calls  man  a 
political  animal  —  he  means  the  Greek.  Burke 
calls  man  a  religious  animal,  by  way  of  contrast 
to  the  old  heathen  philosopher. 

Very  suggestive  is  the  comparison  between  the 
two  grand  sunbursts  of  Greek  architectural 
genius,  the  Parthenon  and  St.  Sophia's.  In  con- 
ception both  are  dedicated  to  one  and  the  same 
divinity  —  Wisdom  deified.  The  round  Eoman 
Pantheon  comes  in  between,  which  may  likewise 
be  deemed  to  have  been  the  product  of  the  cen- 
tripetal movement  at  Rome,  and  which  we  can 
regard  as  a  mediating  structure  between  the  two 
Greek  extremes,  through  its  rotundity  rising  into 
the  Dome. 

As  Athens  lived  on  its  forms  after  the  build- 
ing of  the  Parthenon,  so  Constantinople  did  in 
respect  to  St.  Sophia's,  never  again  bringing 
forth  any  epoch-making  structure.  The  Byzan- 
tine manner  passed  to  other  Christian  lands,  as 
Russia  and  Armenia,  and  underwent  certain 
changes  in  accord  with  national  taste,  but  pro- 
duced nothing  of  universal  import.  The  Greek 
Church  has  kept  on  constructing  its  houses  of 
worship  down  to  the  present  day  after  pretty 
much  the  same  pattern.     It  was  the  shock  of  a 


TBE  BYZANTINE  PERIOD.  449 

great  schism  and  of  a  new  religion  which  gave  a 
new  development  to  Byzantine  Architecture. 

B.  The    Byzantine    Separation.  —  Oriental. 

The  greatest  fact  of  the  Byzantine  world  was 
its  separation  into  Christian  and  Mohammedan, 
or  the  new  separation  into  West  and  East.  We 
recollect  that  the  Byzantine  Empire  arose  from 
the  act  of  Constantine,  who  divided  the 
Koman  Empire  and  went  to  the  East.  But  this 
Eastern  realm  again  splits  up  into  a  West  and 
East,  not  peaceably  now,  but  by  force  of  arms. 
Being  born  of  a  great  act  of  separation,  it  sepa- 
rates within  itself  by  its  own  native  character 
imparted  to  it  through  its  birth. 

Mahomet*  was  an  Arabian  and  began  preaching 
his  new  doctrine  about  610  A.  D.,  considerably 
less  than  a  hundred  years  after  St.  Sophia's,  and 
the  reign  of  Justinian,  who  represents  the  cul- 
mination as  well  as  the  supreme  concentration  of 
the  Byzantine  world.  So  we  see  its  unity  at 
the  highest  point  begin  to  fly  asunder,  into  two 
Eeligions,  two  Empires,  two  Civilizations.  In 
less  than  a  century  nearly  the  whole  Asiatic  por- 
tion of  the  Byzantine  Empire  had  become 
Mahometan. 

As  this  revolution  was  fundamentally  religious, 
its  chief  turning-point  lay  in  its  conception  of 
God.     Mahometanism  is   a  return  to  the  strict 

29 


450  ABC HITEC  TUBE  —  B  UBOPEAN, 

Monotheism  of  the  East,  and  especially  of  the 
Semitic  race,  and  was  directed  primarily  against 
the  triune  deity  of  Christianity.  This  fact  is 
expressed  in  the  oft-repeated  words  of  the  Koran : 
*'  There  is  no  God  but  God,  and  Mahomet  is  his 
prophet."  In  this  declaration  we  may  hear  the 
protest  against  the  prevailing  Christian  trinity. 
The  one  God  is  the  grand  theme  of  Mahomet; 
moreover  God  can  have  no  Son,  but  he  can  have 
a  prophet,  through  whom  He  speaks  and  an- 
nounces His  Will  in  the  form  of  inspired 
revelations. 

This  religious  view  lies  at  the  basis  of  Mahom- 
etan Architecture,  which  is  to  build  the  dwelling- 
place  of  the  new  God  revealed  to  the  prophet. 
The  Mosque  is  the  Byzantine  edifice  variously 
but  superficially  modified.  Thus  it  gbes  back  to 
the  Koman  Basilica,  and  is  an  offshoot  of  Eo- 
manic  Architecture.  Moreover,  Mahometanism 
came  everywhere  into  direct  contact  with  old- 
Eoman  buildings,  in  Syria,  Egypt,  Northern 
Africa,  Spain,  all  of  which  had  been  Eoman 
provinces,  and  still  possessed  many  examples  of 
Eoman  imperial  edifices.  And  it  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  the  Arab  of  the  desert,  from 
whom  the  new  faith  took  its  rise,  was  no  builder. 
On  his  shifting  sands  he  could  only  put  up  his 
tent.  When  he  conquered  civilized  peoples,  he 
had  to  take  their  Architecture.  Still  in  time  he 
transformed  it  in  accord  with  his  spirit. 


fHE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  451 

The  constructive  principle  with  which  the 
religious  character  of  Mahometanism  found  itself 
in  deepest  sympathy  was  the  Dome.  This  sug- 
gests unity,  authority  above,  the  one  invisible 
ruler  of  the  universe .  The  Dome  is  essentially 
God-presenting  and  God-representing,  more  so 
than  any  other  architectural  form.  It  appears 
as  the  immediate  constructive  principle  of  the 
deity,  who  applies  it  in  building  the  visible 
Heaven  over  our  heads.  Particularly  the  Bed- 
ouin of  the  desert  could  see  nothing  else  but 
God's  original  Dome.  So  it  comes  that  the 
Mahometan  took  from  Byzantine  Architecture, 
first  of  all,  the  Dome. 

But  in  the  next  place  he  took  it  immediately, 
seized  it  as  his  spoil.  We  are  here  to  recollect 
that  the  Dome  in  Byzantine  Architecture  was 
the  outcome  of  a  long  process,  embracing  arch, 
vault  and  even  column,  all  of  which  we  behold  in 
St.  Sophia's  as  an  organized  system.  The  Dome 
was  simply  the  top  of  an  evolutionary  series  of 
architectural  forms,  each  of  which  was  conceived 
as  a  member  of  the  whole.  In  other  words  the 
Dome  was  completely  mediated  in  Byzantine 
construction,  was  a  part  of  an  ordered,  rational 
totality,  and  therein  corresponded  to  the  care- 
fully defined  conception  of  God  as  determined 
by  Greek  Theology. 

The  Mahometan  takes  the  Dome  by  itself,  as 
immediate,  apart  from  its  law  and  its  evolution. 


46^  AUCHITECTUBE  -  EVBOPEANt. 

At  once  he  begins  to  treat  it  capriciously,  chang- 
ing its  shape,  making  it  more  pointed  and  bulg- 
ing out  its  sides.  The  strict  spherical  form  of 
Koman  and  Byzantine  construction  he  defies  or 
perchance  laughs  at,  regarding  it  as  a  limitation 
of  the  unlimited.  He  deems  that  he  is  freeing 
God  of  Byzantine  theological  fetters.  Thus  he 
has  a  capricious  deity,  against  whom  the  Greek 
struggled  and  thought  in  philosophy  and  theology 
from  Thales  to  Origen.  The  Dome  too  must 
show  itself  capricious,  changeful,  even  inflated, 
imaging  the  new  God  of  Mahomet. 

Having  thus  transformed  his  central  principle, 
the  Dome,  the  Mahometan  must  carry  out  his 
idea  in  the  rest  of  the  building.  He  will  keep 
the  vault,  but  decorate  it  with  many  a  capricious 
fancy.  The  surfaces  of  his  Mosque  he  will 
cover  with  those  playfully  intertwining  shapes 
known  as  arabesques,  which  in  spite  of  their 
apparent  wilfulness  are  held  in  a  strict  ever- 
recurring  geometric  pattern. 

But  it  is  the  Arch  which  the  Mahometan  mind 
will  hover  around,  transmute  and  decorate  in 
many  ways.  The  Mahometan's  play  with  the 
Arch  which  he  received  from  Rome,  is  more 
varied  and  more  characteristic  than  his  play  with 
the  Dome,  since  the  latter  was  far  less  easily 
handled.  Moreover  he  could  find  precedent, 
both  Byzantine  and  Roman,  for  making  the  Arch 
decorative   and  thus  reducing  it  to  a  plaything. 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  453 

Even  in  St.  Sophia's  the  small  Arch  of  the 
gallery  is  not  a  very  serious  matter,  and  in 
Diocletian's  palace  at  Spalato  we  have  already 
seen  a  Eoman  Arch  deprived  of  all  constructive 
meaning. 

But  one  thing  neither  Byzantine  nor  Eoman 
ever  did:  he  never  abandoned  the  semi-circular 
Arch  in  his  great  works.  It  had  the  one  center 
toward  which  all  the  voussoirs  tended,  the  key- 
stone itself  being  a  voussoir.  That  was  the 
symbol  of  his  institutional  life  (as  we  have 
already  seen),  his  most  intimate  expression, 
which  he  could  not  cast  away  without  a  kind  of 
artistic  suicide.  Now  it  was  this  semi-circular 
Arch  to  which  the  Mahometan  showed  a  peculiar 
aversion,  using  it  apparently  when  he  could  not 
otherwise  help  himself.  That  strict  Roman  Law 
which  made  all  the  component  parts  of  the  great 
Whole  (like  the  voussoirs  of  the  Arch)  obey  the 
one  center,  destroyed  his  caprice.  With  him 
even  the  center,  God  Himself,  must  have 
caprice.  So  the  Mahometan  breaks  up  that  one 
center  of  the  Roman  Arch  into  two  or  three  cen- 
ters by  the  adoption  of  new  varieties  of  the 
Arch  —  especially  known  as  the  pointed  Arch^ 
the  keel  Arch,  and  the  horse-shoe  Arch,  all  of 
them  protests  against  the  one-centered  semi-cir- 
cular Arch  of  Rome,  western  and  eastern.  Again 
we  note  how  profoundly  architectural  forms 
show  national  characters,  their  relations  and  their 


454  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

antagonisms.  Islam  broke  up  the  Roman  Arch 
as  she  broke  up  the  Roman  Empire  of  the  East. 

If  this  report  of  himself  be  true,  the  Mahome- 
tan will  be  wholly  unable  to  organize  a  great 
political  unity  like  Rome  or  Byzantium,  even 
when  there  is  religious  unity.  Accordingly  we 
find  that  all  the  Arabian  conquests  had  a  ten- 
dency to  fly  off  from  the  center,  and  even  in 
themselves  to  fly  to  pieces.  The  Moors  of  Spain 
established  their  own  independent  caliphate,  and 
then,  though  in  the  presence  of  a  vigilant  and 
ever-increasing  enemy,  split  up  into  four  cali- 
phates. Architecturally  the  same  fact  may  be 
thus  stated :  the  Arch  has  no  longer  the  Roman 
unity,  but  is  internally  separated  at  the  center 
when  it  passes  to  the  Orient  and  turns  Mahom- 
etan. 

The  three  Arches  above  named  were  employed 
variously  in  different  portions  of  the  Mahometan 
world.  The  pointed  Arch  was  a  favorite  chiefly 
in  Egypt  and  Sicily ;  the  keel  Arch  had  its  home 
in  the  far  East,  especially  in  Persia;  the  horse- 
shoe Arch  had  a  strong  hold  on  the  Moors  of 
Spain  in  the  extreme  West.  They  all  stand  in 
relation  to  the  semi-circular  Arch,  being  modifi- 
cations of  it,  or  perchance  variations  played  upon 
it  as  the  fundamental  form .  The  pointed  Arch 
contracts  it,  making  it  more  vertical ;  the  keel 
Arch  expands  it,  making  it  more  horizontal;  the 
horse-shoe  Arch  expands  and  then  contracts  it  at 


THE  BYZANTINE  PERIOD.  455 

the  base,  making  it  bulge  like  a  bubble,  which  is 
a  favorite  form  of  the  Dome.  To  the  Western 
mind  this  has  a  stroke  of  the  comic ;  it  repie- 
sents  an  inflated  spirit,  which  puffs  itself  out  too 
much  for  its  foundation,  full  of  Oriental  hyper- 
bole, extravagance,  vanity,  and  swollen  with 
pompous  magnificence.  That  bulbous  Dome  is 
the  Orient  telling  on  itself  somehow  thus :  You 
must  not  think  that  there  is  a  real  basis  (in 
truth)  for  all  my  bulging  superstructure. 

Then  there  is  the  decoration  of  the  Arch  un- 
derneath—  foliated,  scrolled,  curled,  with  a 
wonderful  bef rizzlement  in  stucco  suggesting  the 
toilet  of  an  Oriental  beauty  on  the  Pike.  The 
whole  scheme  is  a  contradiction  of  the  very 
nature  of  the  Arch,  which  cannot  support  from 
below ;  so  the  suspended  ornaments  threaten  to 
drop  down  on  your  head  in  a  play  of  capricious 
fancy.  The  sense  of  security  which  the  Roman 
Arch  gives  to  the  person  passing  under  it,  is  nul- 
lified with  a  touch  of  banter. 

The  column  likewise  undergoes  a  great  change 
in  the  hands  of  the  Mahometan  architect.  Its 
proportions  he  disregarded,  sometimes  making  it 
very  slender  and  sometimes  very  heavy.  Its 
capital  he  festooned  with  many  kinds  of  decora- 
tion, covering  the  same  with  flowers,  stalactites, 
arabesques  and  inscriptions  (see  particularly  the 
Lions'  Court  of  the  Alhambra  and  compare  its 
forms  with  the  mouldings  of  a  Greek  capital). 


456  ABGHITECTUBE^  EUBOPEAN. 

Is  the  Mahometan  the  enemy  of  the'Arch  and 
Column,  undermining  them  in  their  constructive 
purpose,  while  using  them?  He  certainly  plays 
with  them,  makes  fun  of  them,  is  not  penetrated 
with  their  seriousness .  Their  European  charac- 
ter he  changes  or  at  least  obscures.  The  fatalist 
of  Islam  can  have  little  faith  in  man's  devices 
for  meeting  and  conquering  the  great  forces  of 
Nature;  this  work  he  leaves  to  God  and  Fate. 
The  winning  of  freedom  through  the  mastery  of 
the  physical  world  is  not  his  task,  not  his  am- 
bition. Both  Column  and  Arch  were  architec- 
tural steps  in  the  movement  of  European  free- 
dom, which  the  Oriental  mind  could  not  fully 
understand,  and  still  less  apply. 

The  territorial  area  of  Mahometan  Architec- 
ture is  enormous,  much  greater  than  the  extent 
of  Europe.  Only  a  brief  note  of  this  expansion 
can  be  here  given  as  well  as  of  the  changes 
which  took  place  in  it  according  to  locality. 
For  the  religion  of  Mahomet  along  with  its 
Architecture  had  a  marvelous  power  of  adapting 
itself  to  differences  of  nation  and  race  in  the 
Orient,  though  it  never  could  get  hold  of 
European   peoples. 

(1.)  Syria  was  the  first  important  country 
conquered  by  the  Arabian  Mussulmen,  where 
they  found  an  indigenous  layer  of  their  own 
race  (the  Semitic)  upon  which  were  superposed 
in  succession  three  other  layers  of  foreign  cul- 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  457 

ture,  the  old  Greek,  the  Eoman,  and  the  Byzan- 
tine, all  of  them  Aryan.  In  Judea  the  Mahome- 
tan conquerors  came  to  the  fountain-head  of 
Christianity  and  indeed  of  their  own  religion, 
where  they  found  numerous  churches  which  they 
seized  upon  as  their  own.  As  the  Arabians  were 
not  builders,  they  took  the  existing  form  before 
them,  which  was  Byzantine,  and  made  it  the 
basis  of  their  future  architectural  development, 
employing  also  Byzantine  architects,  for  they 
had  none  of  their  own.  In  Syria,  then,  the 
Mahometan  Norm  was  first  found,  being  de- 
scended through  the  Byzantine  from  the  old 
Roman  Basilica,  which  again  was  ancient  Greek 
in  origin.  Thus  the  Mosque  embraced,  in  its 
descent,  the  three  leading  cultural  elements  of 
Syria,  all  of  them  foreign  and  Aryan.  So  the 
Aryan  in  the  present  case  builds  the  home  for 
the  Semitic  God. 

(2.)  Soon  afterwards  the  Arabians  conquered 
Egypt,  where  they  found  the  same  foreign 
Aryan  element  (Greek,  Roman,  Byzantine), 
but  superposed  upon  a  nation  of  builders,  the 
old  Egyptians,  who  had  in  their  ancient  activity 
started  the  architectural  movement  of  the  ages 
by  their  colossal  monuments.  Here  the  Arabians 
came  upon  the  pointed  Arch,  and  began  employ- 
ing it  in  their  buildings,  which  soon  took  an 
Egyptian  tinge . 

(3.)  Sicily  we    may    place    here,  which    the 


458  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

Arabians  conquered  in  the  ninth  century  and 
brought  to  a  high  state  of  development.  The 
pointed  Arch  was  introduced  into  this  island, 
passing  hither  on  its  way  to  Normandy  and 
Northern  Europe.  Also  Mahometan  Sicily 
seems,  in  its  decided  tendency  to  the  vertical, 
to  have  been  the  home  of  the  long-legged  Arch 
for  the  front  of  buildings  of  several  stories  (see 
La  Cuba,  a  castle  at  Palermo),  which  device  has 
been  recently  brought  into  common  use  by  the 
American  High  Building. 

(4.)  In  the  farther  Orient  Mahometan  Archi- 
tecture has  its  Persian  representative  (keel 
arch),  and  thence  passes  to  India  where  it  un- 
folds many  of  its  greatest  glories,  beginning 
somewhat  after  1000  A.  D.,  and  continuing  in  a 
succession  of  gorgeous  edifices  till  the  decline  of 
the  Mogul  dynasty  in  the  18th  century.  This 
long  period  has  in  itself  a  great  variety  of  archi- 
tectural development,  from  old  Delhi  of  the 
Pathan  dynasty,  through  numerous  brilliant 
capitals,  such  as  Agra  and  Futtehpore  Sikri, 
back  to  new  Delhi.  Still  these  edifices  with  all 
their  diversified  decoration,  often  fantastic  as 
well  as  magnificent  in  the  highest  degree,  are 
constructively  of  the  Byzantine  pattern,  and  can 
be  seen  to  be  lineally  descended  from  Classic 
Architecture. 

(5.)  From  the  distant  East  to  the  distant  West 
we  shall  now  skip,  from  the  Mogul  Taj  Mehal  in 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD,  459 

India,  to  the  Moorish  Alhambra  in  Spain.  A 
comparison  between  the  two  groups  of  edifices 
cannot  be  here  made,  though  very  suggestive  for 
penetrating  the  Oriental  mind  in  its  architectural 
workings,  especially  when  both  are  traced  from 
the  same  Koman  Imperial  origin.  During  the 
nearly  eight  centuries  which  the  Moors  passed  in 
Spain,  there  was  likewise  a  development  of  dif- 
ferent stages  of  Architecture.  Three  such 
stages  are  usually  given :  the  first,  based  more  on 
the  old  Roman  buildings  still  existent,  in  the 
country,  culminated  at  Cordova  (see  its  Cathe- 
dral, built  as  a  Mosque  in  786  A.  D.) ;  the  sec- 
ond stage  followed  more  the  Byzantine  style  and 
centered  at  Seville  (see  its  tower  called  the 
Giralda,  built  1195  A.  D.);  the  third  stage 
arose  and  flourished  in  Granada,  and  has  left  us 
the  world-famous  Alhambra  (1309-1354),  not  a 
religious  but  a  secular  building,  a  collective 
Home  of  Moorish  secular  institutions. 

Such  are  a  few  brief  indications  of  the  struc- 
tural and  spatial  vastness  of .  Mahometan  Archi- 
tecture, which  is  a  great  study  by  itself.  Still  it 
never  produced  a  new  constructive  principle  or  a 
new  system  of  construction.  But  over  and 
around  the  transmitted  architectural  forms  it 
wreathed  a  world  of  new  fancies  which  make  it 
unique,  and  quite  distinct  from  Classic  and  other 
kinds  of  Architecture. 

We  have  seen  that  Mahometan  Architecture 


460  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

was  derived  from  the  Byzantine,  and  really  spread 
out  from  Constantinople.  In  all  of  its  wander- 
ings it  shows  an  aspiration  to  get  back  to  its 
center,  to  St.  Sophia's.  For  eight  centuries  and 
more  the  armies  of  the  Prophet  were  beaten' 
from  its  walls,  till  at  last  the  Turks  took  the 
Byzantine  city,  and  with  it  St.  Sophia's,  the 
source  of  Mahometan  Architecture,  which  therein 
concludes  its  cycle,  having  returned  to  its  origin. 
The  Turks  have  built  nothing  to  be  compared 
with  the  works  of  the  Moguls  of  India,  or  of  the 
Saracens  of  Spain,  who  were  driven  out  of 
Granada  in  the  West,  soon  after  the  Turks  had 
entered  Constantinople  in  the  East,  of  Europe. 
Thus  Mahometan  Aechitecture  seems  to  have 
run  its  course  as  creative.  The  same  appears  to 
be  true  of  the  Byzantine,  which,  however,  sends 
off  one  other  interlinking  branch  to  the  West, 
with  which  its  round  is  also  completed. 

C.  The  Byzantine  Ke-union.  — European. 

The  movement  of  Byzantine  Architecture 
Eastward  was  one  of  profound  separation  and 
schism,  resting  upon  a  religious  division.  But  it 
has  another  movement  which  goes  Westward 
and  which  shows  unity  after  the  previous  separa- 
tion of  Christendom  into  the  Greek  and  Latin 
Empires  and  Churches.  It  comes  back  to  its 
original  home    and    starting-point,  whereof  the 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEUIOD,  i^l 

result  is  a  constructive  intermingling  and  recon- 
ciliation. Byzantine  forms  appear  in  Western 
Europe  and  coalesce  with  its  architectural  de- 
velopment. The  main  strands  of  this  movement 
may  be  given  as  follows : — 

( 1 . )  Through  Eavenna  the  Eastern  stream 
flowed  back  into  Italy  by  means  of  conquest. 
Justinian  sent  thither  his  armies :  the  outcome 
was  the  establishment  of  the  Exarchate  of  Rav- 
enna in  which  a  viceroy  of  the  Byzantine  Emperor 
ruled  a  large  but  varying  part  of  Italy  for  about 
200  years  (  552-752  A.D. )  Byzantine  Architec- 
ture, already  known  at  Ravenna,  flowed  in  through 
this  opening  and  spread  its  influence.  The 
church  of  San  Vitale,  suggestive  of  St.  Sophia's 
and  cotemporary  with  it,  has  been  previously 
mentioned.  Ravenna  had  indeed  become  a  sec- 
ond or  Italian  Byzantium  since  the  Emperor 
Honorius  made  it  his  new  capital  (404  A.  D.). 
Then  Theodoric,  king  of  the  Ostrogoths,  took  it 
for  his  royal  residence.  Then  followed  the 
above-mentioned  long  Byzantine  rule,  accom- 
panied by  its  architectural  influence. 

(2.)  Commerce  with  the  East  brought  Byzan- 
tine ideas  into  Western  Europe,  of  which  Venice 
was  a  main  inlet.  Thus  we  may  account  for 
St.  Mark's.  But  the  strange  fact  is  that  this 
influence  should  penetrate  specially  to  South- 
western France  where  some  forty  churches  are 
built  after  the  Byzantine  pattern.     The  leading 


462  AUGHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

one  is  known  as  the  church  of  St.  Front  at 
Perigueux,  erected  probably  about  1100  A.  D., 
and  copied  from  St.  Mark's.  The  same  line  of 
influence  (through  St.  Mark's)  can  be  traced 
elsewhere. 

(3.)  The  Crusaders  brought  back  Byzantine 
motives  from  the  East  (1000-1200)  and  also 
Mahometan.  These  occur  especially  with  great 
frequency  in  the  Eomanesque.  The  shape  of 
the  column  with  its  cubiform  capital,  the  arch 
within  the  larger  arch,  and  especially  the  dome 
as  well  as  many  touches  of  decoration  suggest  the 
Byzantine  influence  subtly  penetrating  Western 
Europe  during  the  medieval  times. 

(4.)  We  should  not  omit  in  this  brief  sum- 
mary new  St.  Peter's,  a  Eenascence  building, 
which  originally  had  a  Greek  cross  for  its  ground- 
plan,  and  still  has  what  we  may  consider  a  direct 
descendant  of  the  Byzantime  dome.  And  yet 
this  Byzantine  dgme  itself  came  originally  from 
Rome,  from  the  Pantheon.  Thus  the  supreme 
principle  of  Byzantine  Architecture  has  gotten 
back  to  the  city  of  its  origin  whose  chief  edifice 
it  crowns.  In  fact,  Christian  St.  Sophia's,  hav- 
ing been  captured  by  the  Mahometans  and  turned 
into  a  Mosque,  takes  flight  to  the  West,  toEome, 
which  is  the  capital  of  the  Christian  world,  and 
perches  upon  the  new  central  cathedral  of  Chris- 
tendom there  just  in  the  process  of  erection. 
Such  we  may  deem  the  return  of  the  Dome  to  its 


THE  BYZANTINE  PEBIOD.  463 

primal  home.  The  Latin  Church,  architecturally 
at  least,  receives  back  the  Greek  Church  in  its 
leading  symbol,  placing  the  same  over  the  heart 
of  the  old  Basilica,  which  is  in  the  act  of  being 
renewed. 

Moreover  Byzantine  Architecture  besides  pen- 
etrating to  the  Euphrates  and  the  Ganges,  has 
engirdled  the  entire  Mediterranean  world.  East 
and  West,  South  and  North,  embracing  that 
territory  in  which  the  antique,  Greco-Roman 
civilization  arose,  spread,  and  flourished.  This 
is  its  completed  cycle,  out  of  which  it  sent  off 
numerous  branches  extending  from  arctic  Russia 
to  equatorial  Africa. 

From  this  vast  dispersion  of  the  Byzantine 
into  different  zones  of  the  Earth  and  among  very 
diverse  peoples  and  even  faiths,  we  pass  to  the 
Romanesque,  which  is,  in  comparison,  a  limited, 
introverted  Architecture,  confined  to  one  locality 
(Western  Europe)  and  essentially  to  one  branch 
of  the  Aryan  race,  the  Teutonic.  We  may  deem 
it,  therefore,  a  new  gathering-up  and  re-concen- 
tration of  Romanic  Architecture. 


464  AUCHITECTUliE  —  EUBOPEAK. 


Ill .  The  West  Komanic  (  Komanesque  )  Period  . 

In  the  movement  of  Romanic  Architecture  we 
have  seen  the  Byzantine  coming  West,  where  it 
found  a  native  style  of  churches  already  in 
existence,  which  had  developed  independently 
out  of  the  early  Basilica.  This  development 
took  place  almost  cotemporaneously  with  the 
Byzantine,  but  advanced  much  more  slowly  than 
that  of  the  Eastern  sister,  who  blossomed  out 
so  surprisingly  into  St.  Sophia's.  Still  it  has  its 
Period,  which  we  call  West  Romanic,  or  Roman- 
esque in  the  wider  sense. 

This  Romanesque,  then,  is  the  third  stage  of 
the  total  Romanic  movement.  It  connects  fund- 
amentally with  the  Early  Romanic  (the  first 
stage)  in  the  ground-plan,  which  is  the  Latin 
cross ;  at  this  point  the  Byzantine  begins  to  sep- 
arate from  the  old  Basilica,  and  takes  its  own 
ground-plan,  the  Greek  cross.  This  difference 
of  ground-plan  gives  a  difference  of  profile  and 
also  a  difference  of  meaning;  the  Byzantine,  as 
already  set  forth,  is  more  centralized  than  the 
Romanesque.  Each  rises  up  to  Heaven  after  its 
own  way,  in  profound  correspondence  with  its 
own  view  of  the  Godhead. 

The  Romanesque  keeps  the  interior  of  the 
Early  Romanic,  and  unfolds  it  within  the  same 


THE  BOMANESqUE   PEBIOD.  465 

general  lines.  But  when  it  comes  to  the  out- 
side, there  is  a  great  new  development.  The 
entire  Romanesque  movement  is  essentially 
toward  the  exterior,  which  it  has  to  transfigure. 
The  Early  Romanic  went  inward  and  neglected 
the  outside,  had  to  do  so,  in  fact.  But  the 
Romanesque  insists  that  the  outer  life  and  its 
manifestation  shall  correspond  to  the  inner. 
This  inner  life  is  undoubtedly  to  be  developed, 
but  the  inwardness  must  come  out  into  the  world 
and  transform  it,  filling  all  our  secular  existence 
with  the  inner  spiritual  illumination.  Such,  in 
general,  is  the  Teutonic  view  as  distinct  from 
the  Early  Romanic,  which  view  the  Northern 
peoples  especially  will  cultivate  in  their  hearts 
and  embody  in  their  Architecture. 

The  exteriorizing  of  the  interior  in  the  Roman- 
esque is,  therefore,  in  striking  contrast  with  the 
interiorizing  of  the  exterior,  with  which  the 
Early  Romanic  began.  Yet  we  can  see  that  both 
are  parts  of  one  complete  process  of  the  total 
Romanic.  And  when  this  Romanic  has  reached 
its  full  and  adequate  externalization  which  it 
does  in  the  Gothic,  it  is  at  an  end,  it  develops 
no  more,  having  finished  its  cycle. 

I.  In  locality  the  RoQianesque  belongs  to 
Western  Europe  quite  exclusively;  it  certainly 
never  had  the  power  to  spread  over  vast  areas, 
such  as  we  have  seen  in  the  Byzantine.  And  it 
was  confined  not  only  to  one  race,  the  Aryan, 

30 


466  AB  CHITE  CTUBE  —  EUIt  OPEAK. 

but  substantially  to  one  branch  or  stock  of  that 
race,  the  Teutonic.  The  Romanesque  never 
thrived  among  the  Latins  or  the  Greeks,  both  of 
whom  were  Aryans ;  still  less  could  it  succeed 
with  Semites  or  Turanians.  Thus  it  is  relatively 
limited,  concentrated,  turned  back  upon  itself 
from  foreign  boundaries ;  an  inner  development 
it  has  as  a  whole,  yet  passing  outward;  and 
every  man  in  its  domain  exhibits  the  same  char- 
acteristic, which  is  to  unfold  internally  and  to 
manifest  outwardly  his  individuality.  The  Teu- 
tons have  always  proclaimed  freedom  as  their 
soul's  own;  to  be  sure,  their  definition  of  it  has 
varied  considerably  at  different  times  and  in 
different  tribes. 

This  leads  us  to  tlie  next  fact :  the  Roman- 
esque within  its  limited  bounds  showed  an  enor- 
mous diversity,  much  greater  on  the  whole  than 
the  far  more  extended  Byzantine.  Such  a  fact 
indicates  that  every  tribe  and  many  a  community, 
certainly  every  nation  of  Western  Europe,  had 
its  own  form  of  the  Romanesque,  which  thus 
became  so  much  plastic  material  for  the  institu- 
tional spirit  small  and  great.  Something  of  the 
sort  we  observe  in  every  Architecture :  it  varies 
with  the  nation  and  the  age,  else  it  could  have 
no  history.  But  such  a  splitting-up  as  we  find 
in  the  Romanesque,  especially  in  the  North 
Romanesque,  is  unique,  and  indicates  that  every 
town  with  its   church  is  going    to    individualize 


THE  BOMANESqUE  PERIOD.  467 

itself.  Thus  the  Eomanesque  seems  to  have  a 
tight  hoop  around  itself,  barreling  up  its  contents 
and  preventing  them  from  spreading  to  other 
parts  of  the  globe,  but  within  its  spatial  confines, 
vrhat  a  fermentation  and  multiplicity!  In  this 
respect  the  Byzantine  may  be  deemed  the  su- 
premely poly-ethnic  Architecture,  having  that 
marvelous  capacity  of  adapting  itself  to  different 
nations  and  races  with  different  religions ;  while 
the  Eomanesque,  unable  to  transcend  its  national 
limit  (Teutonic),  but  dividing  up  tribally,  may 
be  regarded  as  mono-ethnic,  but  multi-tribal. 
In  other  words  the  Byzantine  diversifies  itself 
externally,  breaking  over  bounds;  the  Roman- 
esque diversifies  itself  internally,  keeping  within 
bounds. 

II.  In  accord  with  the  foregoing  character, 
the  Romanesque  will  have  no  central  city  like 
Constantmople,  no  central  church  like  St. 
Sophia's,  from  which  it  overflows  a  good  part 
of  this  world.  Nor  has  it  any  supreme  example 
of  its  collective  Architecture,  such  as  we  saw  on 
the  Athenian  Acropolis,  at  Egyptian  ThebeS;  and 
around  the  Roman  Forum.  On  the  contrary, 
the  structures  are  scattered  through  the  land 
from  the  start,  and  have  the  tendency  to  develop 
of  themselves,  each  in  its  own  right',  without 
deriving  its  pattern  from  the  great  central  edifice 
or  from  the  great  central  city.  To  be  sure,  all 
this  takes  place  withm  the  Romanesque  Norm, 


468  ABCBITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

which  is  the  given,  the  prescribed,  the  trans- 
mitted ;  but  inside  the  limits  of  this  Norm  there 
is  an  almost  unlimited  variation.  As  we  saw  a 
strict  national  limit  within  which  was  enacted 
the  endless  play  of  tribal  diversity,  so  now  we 
are  to  note  the  corresponding  constructive  limit, 
the  Norm  of  the  Eomanesque,  within  which 
shoots  up  an  unbounded  diversity  of  structures, 
in  answer  to  the  tribal  and  even  communal 
differentiation  of  the  institutional  spirit. 

It  should  also  be  noted  that  this  Norm  of  the 
Eomanesque  is  and  remains  an  ideal  thing,  never 
having  been  fully  realized  in  any  individual  edi- 
fice, and  seemingly  impossible  of  complete  real- 
ization. It  is  an  end  to  be  striven  after,  hardly 
to  be  attained,  for  if  it  were  once  real,  it  would 
be  no  longer  ideal.  This  trait  is  deeply  Teu- 
tonic, and  is  the  basis  of  all  Komanticism  which 
breaks  out  like  an  epidemic  at  stated  periods  in 
Germany,  and  more  or  less  among  all  Teutonized 
peoples. 

Moreover  the  Eomanesque  is  a  communal 
Architecture,  being  erected  by  the  community 
through  itself,  from  within.  It  springs  not 
from  the  thought  or  work  of  a  central  im- 
perial authority;  the  town,  the  district,  the 
commune,  taxes  itself  and  seeks  to  build  in 
accord  with  its  own  spirit,  and  keeps  on  build- 
ing at  its  task  year  after  year  as  the  supreme 
thing  to  be  done,  though  it  take  a  century.     It 


THE  ROMANESQUE  PERIOD.  469 

is  affecting  to  read  of  the  long  devotion  of 
medieval  communities  to  the  construction  of 
their  churches  and  cathedrals,  often  involving 
several  generations  in  the  burden.  We  feel  that 
their  labor  is  an  act  of  worship,  to  build  is  to 
pray,  and  to  put  one  stone  on  top  of  another  is 
a  step  toward  heaven.  Hence  the  sincerity,  the 
religiosity  in  these  old  medieval  structures ;  the 
whole  community  felt  itself  to  be  erecting  the 
Home  of  its  God  in  its  midst,  and  sought  to 
make  for  Him  a  worthy  and  eternal  dwelling 
place.  Justinian  with  imperial  authority  and  im- 
perial treasures  might  finish  in  ^ye  years  St. 
Sophia's,  which  would  serve  as  a  model  for  all 
other  churches.  But  in  the  West  each  town 
was  going  to  have  its  own  St.  Sophia's  or  strive 
for  that  end  through  its  own  independent  effort. 
Communal  freedom  thus  found  an  expression  in 
constructing  the  House  of  the  Spirit  which 
inspires  man  with  such  freedom. 

We  must,  however,  recollect  that  the  Byzan 
tine  empire  performed  its  task  also,  and  this  was 
not  easy  or  brief.  Its  way  was  different  from 
the  West-European;  still  we  are  to  appreciate 
both  as  parts  or  stages  of  the  one  great  world- 
historical  process  of  Europe.  It  is  the  habit  of 
West-European  historians,  who  treat  of  this  sub- 
ject, to  disparage  the  Byzantine  world,  especially 
in  its  political  and  religious  aspects.  Such  dis- 
paragement \comes  from  the  many  centuries  of 


470  ABGHITECTUBE  —  E  VBOPEAN. 

antagonism  between  the  two  sides,  the  Greek  and 
Latin  Churches,  the  Eastern  and  Western  Em- 
pires. But  we  are  now  to  see  that  each  fulfilled 
its  function  with  enormous  outlay  of  effort;  each 
is,  however,  but  a  fragment  of  something  better, 
of  a  greater  Whole  which  the  ages  are  bringing 
forth,  and  from  which  we  may,  from  our  point 
of  view,  catch  some  enduring  glimpses. 

III.  The  Teutonic  element,  which  is  the  new 
creative  spirit  of  Romanesque  Architecture,  is 
not  civilized,  but  is  at  first  the  external  destroyer 
of  Greco-E-oman  civilization.  The  Teuton  is  a 
barbarian,  whose  destiny  is  to  become  civilized 
by  taking  up  and  appropriating  the  Christian 
and  Heathen  principles,  which  are,  however, 
themselves  antagonistic.  This  dualism  will  re- 
main in  him  and  will  not  fail  to  manifest  itself 
in  his  development.  We  shall  find  him  return- 
ing and  .even  relapsing  to  Heathendom  through 
his  whole  career  down  to  Goethe,  who  has,  both 
in  his  life  and  in  his  writings,  given  the  com- 
pletest  expression  of  this  characteristic. 

In  Romanesque  Architecture  the  same  inner 
opposition  is  seen.  The  semi-circular  Arch  may 
be  deemed  Roman  Christian,  even  if  adopted 
from  Heathen  Rome.  The  Teuton  will  likewise 
adopt  it,  wrestle  with  it,  and  finally  transforui  it 
into  the  pointed  Arch.  This  is  the  great  and 
deeply  significant  change  which  takes  place  in 
the  development  of  the   Romanesque  Architec- 


TEE  BOMANESqUE  PEBIOD.  471 

ture.  Its  meaning  we  shall  try  to  set  forth  later ; 
at  present  we  may  note  that  the  center  of  the 
Arch  is  no  longer  one,  but  divides  in  twain; 
which  fact  renders  possible  its  vertical,  upward- 
pointing  movement. 

At  the  same  time  another  important  change  is 
recorded :  the  builders  are  no  longer  monks  or 
ecclesiastics,  who  were  strongly  attached  to  the 
Eoman  tradition  and  hence  to  the  semi-circular 
Arch  in  building.  The  secular  guild  of  masons 
appears  in  opposition  to  the  clerical  guild  of  ar- 
chitects ;  an  echo  of  this  hostility  is  heard  still 
to-day  in  the  anathemas  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  upon  Free  Masonry.  Herein  we  behold 
another  indication  of  the  Teutonic  protest  against 
the  central  ecclesiastical  authority.  In  general 
the  Romanesque  Churches  even  in  the  North 
were  constructed  by  the  building  clergy  who 
owed  allegiance  to  Rome;  but  the  Gothic  is 
chiefly  the  work  of  the  fraternity  of  masons  and 
architects  which  had  its  own  independent  organ- 
ization with  rules  and  traditions.  Romanesque 
construction  also  asserted  its  freedom,  its  right 
of  determining  itself.  Still  it  did  not  break  loose 
from  the  old  Church,  though  we  must  regard  it 
as  paving  the  way.  For  this  reason  the  Roman- 
esque in  its  Gothic  form  was  never  popular  at 
the  metropolis :  Rome,  the  city  of  Churches,  is 
said  to  have  but  one  of  the  Gothic  sort. 

The  foregoing  transition  from  the  semi-circular 


472  ABCHITECTUBE  ^EUROPEAN. 

to  the  pointed  Arch  must  be  regarded  as  the 
essential  inner  movement  of  the  Komanesque 
(West-Romanic)  as  a  whole.  Its  end  was  to 
bring  forth  the  latter  out  of  the  former,  and  then 
to  develop  its  Gothic  progeny  to  its  conclusion. 

IV.  The  Romanesque  had  from  the  start  the 
problem  of  the  towers,  which  became  the  chief 
means  of  exteriorizing  the  interior,  this  being  its 
task.  In  Italy  the  tower  is  nearly  always  a  sep- 
arate structure,  though  near  to  the  Church.  Yet 
in  Northern  Italy  it  begins  to  be  integrated  with 
the  main  building,  as,  for  instance,  in  the  Lom- 
bard Cathedral  of  Piacenza.  But  when  it  travels 
North  beyond  the  Alps,  the  tower  becomes  not 
only  an  organic  part  of  the  Church,  but  develops 
into  a  system  of  many  towers  including  and 
transforming  the  Dome.  Thus  it  is  the  main 
motive  in  the  external  appearance  of  the  Roman- 
esque. 

The  system  of  towers  has  its  social  and  institu- 
tional character,  and  may  be  deemed  expressive 
of  the  medieval  spirit.  The  prevailing  social 
order  is  known  as  feudal,  in  which  the  stress  is 
upon  the  personal  relation  of  each  individual  to 
the  supreme  authority.  Who  cannot  feel  a 
parallel  meaning  in  the  towers,  each  of  which 
rises  out  of  the  common  Church  m  its  own  place, 
form,  and  manner  toward  Heaven?  Medieval 
knighthood,  with  all  its  service  has,  too,  the  idea 
of  individual  self-assertion.     The   whole  Feudal 


THE  BOMANESqUE  PEBIOD.  473 

System  is  pervaded  with  the  same  thought;  the 
vassal  is  devoted  to  his  lord,  but  the  lord  is 
equally  devoted  to  the  vassal.  The  Guilds  of 
workmen,  the  Free  Cities,  and  their  Leagues  are  a 
Church  with  its  system  of  towers  rising  from  be- 
low into  a  personal  communion  with  what  is 
above. 

The  tower  is  visible  from  a  distance,  and 
speaks,  as  far  as  the  eye  can  reach,  to  the  people 
in  their  homes,  in  their  fields,  and  in  all  their 
secular  occupations.  And  especially  it  has  a 
tongue  sending  its  voice  afar,  the  bell,  which  is 
to  be  heard,  not  seen.  The  Greek  temple  had 
no  tower,  and  showed  itself  as  a  whole  at  a  dis- 
tance. The  Komanesque  Church  will  manifest 
itself  to  the  world  through  both  senses,  vision 
and  hearing;  hence  it  has  in  its  interior  a  place 
for  music.  The  Early  Romanic  avoided  any 
such  appeal  to  the  outside,  it  turned  within,  was 
driven  within  by  external  force  in  part,  but  chiefly 
by  itself.  The  tower  has  little  or  no  inside 
meaning  constructively,  though  the  dome  has ; 
properly  it  can  be  seen  only  outside. 

V.  There  is,  however,  a  Romanesque  form 
which  connects  inside  and  outside  in  a  very 
striking  manner:  the  Rose  or  Wheel  Window  in 
front.  It  is  placed  over  the  entrance  to  let  in 
light  from  above  through  its  many-hued  panes  of 
glass,  being  round  like  a  rose  with  its  petals  or  a 
wheel  with  its  spokes.     We  prefer  to  think  of  it 


474  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

as  resembling  the  sun  itself  with  its  rays  which 
are  transmuted  into  color  as  they  penetrate  in- 
side. So  the  sun,  the  light  of  nature,  salutes 
and  accompanies  the  man  who  enters  the  church, 
where  it  is  broken  into  many  tints  revealing  its 
inner  character,  as  if  passed  through  the  prism 
and  converted  into  a  spectrum.  But  the  man, 
having  entered,  must  turn  his  back  to  it,  and 
face  the  altar  where  shines  the  other  sun,  that  of 
the  Spirit,  in  contrast  and  even  in  opposition. 
In  the  Komanesque  the  outer  sun  is  employed 
not  simply  to  show  us  outer  things,  but  to  lead 
us  to  the  vision  of  the  inner  sun. 

We  should  also  glance  at  the  main  entrance, 
the  Portal,  which  is  a  series  of  arches  retreating 
inwards  and  resting  usually  on  connected  colum- 
nar jambs  or  capitals.  It  has  the  intention  of 
an  arched  colonnade  in  perspective,  and  thus  is  a 
kind  of  overture  to  what  follows  inside  the 
church,  namely,  the  vaulted  nave  ending  in  the 
so-called  triumphal  Arch.  Again  we  observe  the 
tendency  to  exteriorize  the  interior,  which  we 
noted  as  the  basic  movement  of  the  Romanesque, 
in  distinction  from  the  early  Romanic,  which 
sought  rather  to  hide  the  entrance  to  the  church 
than  proclaim  it  to  the  outside  world. 

Is  it  not  plain  that  the  enclosure  in  the 
Romanesque  is  being  pierced  everywhere  to  bring 
what  is  inside  to  the  outside?  It  seems  as  if  the 
interior,  being   no  longer  able  to  contain  itself 


THE  BOMANESQUE  PERIOD.  475 

within,  is  breaking  through  the  walls  of  the 
old  Basilica  and  is  showing  itself  externally, 
seeking  to  charm  the  outsider  by  its  beauty  and 
trying  to  induce  him  to  come  inside  to  the 
sources.  The  Romanesque  preaches,  is  a  mis- 
sionary Architecture,  especially  to  the  Teutonic 
Heathen.  Window,  portal,  fagade,  tower  are 
all  directed  to  the  outside  world,  and  deliver 
to  it  their  message  from  within,  proclaiming  in 
their  way  the  Gospel  to  the  unconverted.  The 
Church  is  a  sermon  in  stone  delivered  through 
vision  to  those  standing  without,  in  deep  corre- 
spondence with  what  is  within.  It  intones  the 
fundamental  text  of  the  Evangel  to  all  who  enter ; 
at  least  this  must  be  the  final  test  of  all  worthy 
Christian  Architecture. 

Such  are,  in  general,  the  leading  characteristics 
of  the  West  Romanic,  which  we  call  Romanesque 
also,  using  the  latter  word  in  its  wider  sense. 
But  it  has  its  own  movement  which  starts  in 
the  South  and  then  passes  to  the  North,  show- 
ing a  change  not  only  in  locality,  but  also  in 
form  and  meaning.  The  main  stages  are  as 
follows :  — 

A.  South  Romanesque  ( Cisalpine) ;  the  de- 
velopment out  of  the  old  Roman  Basilica.  The 
trussed  ceiling  passes  into  the  ribbed  vault 
(Lombard);  the  transept  is  developed  into  the 
explicit  Latin  cross;  the  tower  is  present  but 
sepauate  in  most  cases ;  the  Dome  begins   to  be 


476  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

placed    over   the     crossing    of     the    nave   and 
transept;  the  exterior  starts  to  manifest  itself. 

B.  The  North  Homonesque  (^Transalpine)^ 
which  is  the  Komanesque  proper,  in  the  nar- 
rower sense  of  the  word.  It  passes  the  Alps 
and  there  develops  inward  and  specially  outward, 
making  the  tower  a  part  of  the  church  and  un- 
folding a  system  of  towers.  It  retains  the  semi- 
circular Arch  but  at  the  same  time  exhibits  a 
vertical  tendency  in  opposition  to  it. 

C.  The  Gothic,  which  changes  to  the  Pointed 
Arch  and  applies  it  both  inside  and  outside, 
forming  a  completely  harmonious  system  of  Ar- 
chitecture, organized  both  internally  and  exter- 
nally from  a  single  constructive  principle. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  the  Romanesque 
rounds  itself  out  by  passing  from  South  to 
North  and  then  back  to  the  South.  It  starts 
from  Italy,  and  returns  to  Italy  in  the  Italian 
Gothic,  forming  a  cycle  spatially  as  well  as 
spiritually.  The  Romanesque  seems  to  desire  to 
get  back  to  Rome,  its  parent,  after  its  long  and 
distant  wandering  in  the  North.  But  when  it 
reaches  Rome  and  Florence,  its  cycle  is  com- 
plete, and  the  new  Style,  the  Renascence,  is 
ready  to  begin. 

The  Byzantine  on  the  other  hand,  forms  its 
cycle  around  the  Mediterranean,  moving  from 
East  to  West.  Thus  it  makes  a  kind  of  cross 
with  the   Romanesque,  intersecting   it   at   right 


THE  ROMANESQUE  PEBIOD.  477 

angles,  and  we  may  conceive  all  Europe  as  fur- 
nishing the  ground-plan  of  the  one  universal 
Christian  Cathedral  built  upon  a  cross  of  which 
the  Romanesque  or  the  Latin  Church  is  one  piece 
and  the  Byzantine  or  the  Greek  Church  is  the 
other. 

A.  The  South  Romanesque  (Cisalpine). 

As  this  is  a  very  confused  and  confusing  part 
of  our  subject,  the  most  heterogeneous  of  the 
heterogeneous  Romanesque,  we  have  thought  it 
would  be  well  to  distinguish  between  the  Early 
Romanic  (already  treated)  and  the  Early  or 
South  Romanesque  whose  field  is  Italy  and  some 
countries  which  copied  Italy.  The  Early  Ro- 
manic chose  the  basilica  out  of  a  number  of 
ancient  Classic  forms,  yet  did  not  wholly  reject 
the  circular  building  of  old  Rome.  It  lasted  till 
the  time  of  Constantine  when  Christian  worship 
became  not  only  open,  but  established  by  the 
State.  This  was  a  great  change,  and  was  re- 
flected in  Architecture  which  could  now  manifest 
itself  externally,  having  made  itself  internal 
during  300  years  of  proscription  and  persecution, 
and  having  interiorized  what  Classic  forms  it 
needed.  The  field  of  the  Early  Romanic  was 
the  entire  Roman  Empire,  while  the  field  of  this 
Early  or  South  Romanesque  is  Italy,  even  if  it 
overflowed   into    other   lands.     Its  period   runs 


478  ARCHITECTURE  —EUROPEAN. 

from  the  fourth  till  the  eleventh  and  even  twelfth 
century,  when  the  style  changes. 

To  give  some  idea  of  this  time  of  architec- 
tural fermentation,  which  had  also  its  social  and 
institutional  counterpart,  we  shall  briefly  sum- 
marize the  leading  influences. 

1.  At  Eome  and  in  Central  Italy  the  old 
transmitted  form  of  the  Basilica  continued  to 
prevail.  Classic  traditions  remained  triumphant 
still  at  the  center.  Yet  these  were  stoutly  as- 
sailed in  other  parts  of  Italy  by  the  incoming  in- 
fluences. Numerous  Basilicas  belonging  to  this 
period,  yet  patterned  after  the  old,  are  still  to 
be  found  in  Kome. 

2.  The  Byzantine  influence  entering  Italy  at 
Ravenna  began  early,  as  is  seen  by  the  Dome 
over  the  Tomb  of  Galla  Placidia  (423  A.  D.). 
When  Honorius,  the  Eoman  Emperor  of  the 
West,  fled  to  Ravenna  from  Rome,  and  placed 
himself  in  connection  with  Constantinople  through 
the  sea,  from  fear  of  the  Goths,  he  acknowledged 
Byzantine  protection  (404).  This  must  have 
opened  the  way  for  Byzantine  Architecture. 
In  476  the  Empire  of  the  West  ceased  to  exist 
and  Italy  was  a  part  of  the  Eastern  Empire. 
After  the  Gothic  interruption  a  large  portion  of 
Italy  was  again  subjected  to  the  East,  and 
Ravenna  became  the  seat  of  the  Byzantine 
Exarchs     for    two    centuries    (552-572).     St. 


THE  BOMANESqUE  PEBIOD.  479 

Sophia's  had  been  built,  and  this  was  specially 
a  time  of  Byzantine  influence  in  the  West. 

3.  In  Tuscany  the  Roman  Basilican  and  the 
Byzantine  principles,  yet  not  without  Teutonic 
influence,  met  and  produced  a  very  suggestive 
local  type  of  Architecture,  which  is  best  seen  at 
Pisa  whose  Cathedral  is  basilican  and  cruciform 
(Latin)  in  its  ground-plan,  but  has  over  it  the 
central  Byzantine  Dome,  and  is  without  towers. 
The  Tower  (leaning)  and  the  Baptistery  are 
separate  structures  as  yet  in  Pisa,  but  they  will 
be  seen  conjoined  with  the  church  in  the  North. 
The  main  aisle  has  still  the  flat  wooden  ceiling  of 
the  old  Basilica,  while  the  side  aisles  are  vaulted : 
which  fact  shows  the  struggle  between  the  old 
and  the  new,  or  between  the  Roman  and  the 
Teutonic  (Lombard)  influences  entering  the  same 
structure. 

But   the  most   original   and  significant    thing 
about  the  Pisan  Cathedral  is  the  development  of 
the  exterior,  which  has  an  elaborate   system  of 
columnar   arcades   both    open   and   blind,    both 
large  and  small.     These  on  the  front  rise  in  no 
less  than  five  tiers  one  over  the  other  to  the  top, 
forming  a  facade  impressive  and  full  of  meaning. 
The   old  Basilica  disregarded  the  exterior,  put- 
ting all  its  stress  upon  the  interior,  but  now  the 
latter  seems  to  break  through  the  ancient,  dingy, 
secretive  walls  and  show  itself  to  the  world  in  full 
splendor.     The  arcuate   columnar    principle,  so 


480  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

fully  developed  inside  by  the  early  Romanic,  has 
burst  outside  in  this  Tuscan  Romanesque,  and 
delights  to  hear  the  echoes  of  itself  in  hundred- 
fold repetitions.  The  Cathedral  of  Pisa  belongs 
to  the  eleventh  century  (begun  in  1063),  and 
shows  the  bloom  of  Italian  Romanesque  in  its 
earlier  development,  which  may  be  deemed  pro- 
phetic of  later  Florentine  art. 

The  preceding  influences,  old  Basilican,  By- 
zantine, and  Tuscan,  were  civilized  influences  and 
sprang  from  civilized  peoples  (Latin  and  Greek) 
descended  from  antiquity.  But  a  new  race  has 
come  upon  the  scene,  with  a  young,  even  if 
rude  spirit,  and  is  determined  to  manifest  itself. 
The  Ostrogoths  ruled  in  Tuscany  during  the 
sixth  century  A.  D.,  and  they,  especially  under 
their  great  King  Theodoric,  infused  fresh  life  into 
that  old  land.  Later  came  the  Lombard  influence. 
The  forms  of  this  early  Tuscan  Architecture  are 
ancient,  but  there  is  a  new  spirit  employing  them, 
which  compels  the  interior  to  show  itself  through 
them  and  to  come  outward.  The  Teuton  is  bent 
upon  self-assertion,  self -manifestation,  and  he 
imparts  this  element  to  the  old  Basilica  in  Italy, 
which  was  so  decidedly  introverted. 

4.  The  barbaric  invaders  of  Italy,  Teutonic 
in  origm  almost  wholly,  left  their  mark  upon  the 
Italian  Architecture  of  this  era.  The  first  wave 
of  these  hordes,  represented  by  Alaric  the  Goth 
and  Genseric  the  Vandal,  showed  their  influence 


THE  nOMANESQUE  PEMIOD.  481 

by  destruction,  particularly  in  the  two  sacks  of 
Rome  (410  and  455).  The  second  wave,  the 
Ostrogothic  (493-552),  settled  in  Italy,  became 
civilized,  so  that  they  preserved  and  even  wrought 
over  anew  ancient  monuments.  (See  remains  of 
Palace  and  Tomb  of  Theodoric  at  Ravenna.) 
The  third  great  wave  was  the  Lombards  whose 
seats  were  in  Northern  Italy,  chiefly  at  Pavia  as 
center,  for  more  than  two  hundred  years  (568- 
774). 

During  this  long  period  and  afterwards  they 
developed  their  own  architectural  forms,  some 
of  which  had  a  permanent  influence.  Though 
the  interior  of  the  Basilica  was  retained,  the 
facade  in  its  outline  no  longer  showed  the  old 
Basilican  distinction  between  side-aisles  and  nave 
(San  Michele  at  Pavia).  But  the  main  fact  of 
Lombard  Architecture  was  the  cross  vaulting 
with  the  pronounced  groining.  The  large  ribs 
so-called  suggested  great  physical  strength; 
they  reached  across  the  aisles  overhead  like 
the  tendons  of  a  huge,  sinewy  arm  extended 
for  protection.  This  is  the  structural  device 
which  captivated  the  rude  and  hardy  Teutons 
who  put  such  emphasis  upon  their  physical 
powers.  The  Byzantme  Dome  has  no  such 
hint  of  the  strong  right  arm  of  the  Protector. 
And  the  old  Basilica  has  for  its  coveringr  the 
wooden  roof,  weak  in  itself  and  easily  destruc- 
tible.     The    Teuton    will    reject    this,    having 

31. 


482  ARCBITECTVBE  —  EUBOPBAN. 

found  his  symbol,  his  characteristic  form  or  at 
least  one  of  them,  for  his  religious  edifice.  En- 
tering it  he  sees  the  muscles  of  God's  arm 
reaching  out  over  him.  The  ribbed  vault  will 
cross  the  Alps  to  all  Teutonic  and  Teutonized 
countries  of  the  North,  and  there  become  a  dis- 
tinctive element  of  the  Romanesque  including 
the  Gothic. 

Of  course  the  Lombards  did  not  invent  this 
constructive  device;  it  was  known  in  ancient 
Rome,  even  in  ancient  Egypt.  But  they  nation- 
alized it,  as  the  Greeks  did  the  column,  and  the 
Romans  did  the  Arch,  making  it  an  image  or 
emblem  of  their  spirit.  The  Lombards  first  made 
the  groined  vault  institutional,  putting  it  into 
the  Home  of  their  God  who  united  them  as  one 
people .  And  the  Lombard  church  must  be  re- 
garded as  less  sacerdotal  than  the  old  Basilica ; 
it  calls  the  look  above  also,  and  suggests  an 
immediate  relation  of  the  individual  to  his  Divine 
Protector,  even  if  the  clergy  at  the  end  get  the 
chief  attention.  In  this  we  may  read  an  early 
Teutonic  protest  against  the  all  denominating 
hierarchy,  a  protest  which  will  grow  louder 
through  the  ages. 

5.  Another  Romanesque  starting-point  belongs 
to  Southern  Italy.  In  1061  the  Normans  con- 
quered Sicily  and  introduced  the  Norman  Roman- 
esque into  this  island  and  into  Southern  Italy. 
There   they  impinged  upon  a  new  architectural 


THE  BOMANESqUE  PERIOD.  483 

element,  the  Mahometan,  since  the  Arabians  had 
conquered  and  possessed  Sicily  during  the  pre- 
vious two  centuries.  Here  the  Romanesque 
takes  up  and  employs  the  Pointed  Arch  from  its 
Arabic  sources,  whence  it  is  carried  back  to  Nor- 
mandy and  gives  rise  to  the  Gothic.  In  Sicily, 
however,  the  Pointed  Arch  was  not  structurally 
developed ;  it  too  had  to  find  its  congenial  home 
before  it  became  institutional. 

Such  was  the  time  of  destruction  and  gradual 
reconstruction  which  is  here  named  South  Ro- 
manesque, its  scene  being  Italy.  The  old  cul- 
ture is  to  be  broken  up  and  to  be  reformed 
afresh  in  the  original  workshop  of  human  nature. 
Christianity  requires  that  man  be  made  over,  and 
with  him  Architecture.  So  the  fair  Greek  and 
Roman  edifices  of  an  advanced  civilization  are 
knocked  to  pieces,  being  turned  back  into  that 
primordial  formative  protoplasm  from  which  we 
saw  them  emerojing  lonor  aojo  in  the  old  Pelasojic 
era.  A  new  spirit  is  to  re-shape  them,  making 
them  the  abode  of  a  new  institutional  world  with 
its  new  divine  conception.  For  such  work  a 
new,  uncorrupted,  unexhausted  people  are  taken, 
who  are  now  upon  the  appointed  ground  of  the 
great  transformation,  destroying  or  setting  aside 
the  old,  but  also  evolving  fresh  forms  for  the 
future. 

They  find  that  there  is  something  indestruc- 
tible in  these  ancient  edifices;  the  column,  arch. 


484  ARGHITECTUBE  —  EUROPE  AK. 

vault  and  dome  are  not  to  perish  in  the  buildings 
of  which  they  are  the  elements.  The  Teutonic 
spirit,  having  reached  through  destruction  these 
primal  indestructible  forms,  will  begin  to  put 
them  together  in  new  ways  for  the  purpose  of 
expressing  itself  constructively.  Such  is  the 
inner  creative  spirit  which  has  begun  to  shape 
the  new  Architecture  called  Romanesque.  Par- 
ticularly in  Italy  has  the  beginning  been  made. 
But  now  the  further  development  of  this  Archi- 
tecture is  to  pass  beyond  the  Cisalpine  or  Italic 
region  to  the  Transalpine  nations  bending  on  the 
North  around  Italy. 

B.  The   North   Romanesque    (Transalpine). 

Romanesque  Architecture  crosses  the  Alps 
and  reaches  the  true  home  of  its  development 
among  Teutonic  and  Teutonized  peoples.  Al- 
ready in  Italy  the  Lombards,  a  Teutonic  tribe, 
had  shown  the  most  originality  in  building, 
though  not  free  from  a  certain  uncouthness. 

This  North  Romanesque  will  retain  the  Basil- 
ica, the  common  possession  of  all  Romanic  Arch- 
itecture East  and  West.  It  will  also  keep  and 
develop  the  ribbed  vault,  as  well  as  the  ground- 
form  of  the  Latin  cross  with  its  completed 
transept.  The  clustered  pier,  which  had  already 
started  in  Italy,  will  continue  to  unfold  in  the 
North.     We  may  place  the   culmination  of  the 


THE  NOBTH  BOMANESqUE.  485 

North  Romanesque  in  the  12th  and  13th  centur- 
ies, though  it  overlaps  the  epochs  both  before 
and  after,  both  the  Italian  Romanesque  and  the 
Gothic. 

At  this  point  a  question  of  nomenclature  ob- 
trudes itself.  We  have  used  the  word  Roman- 
esque in  a  wider  sense  (indicated  by  the  alter- 
nate, We.st-Ilomanic) /vQ.  which  it  is  contrasted 
with  the  Byzantine  and  Early  Romanic.  But  it 
has  also  a  narrow  usage  (indicated  by  the  alter- 
nate North  Romanesque)  in  which  it  stands  in 
contrast  with  the  Gothic  and  South  Roman- 
esque. Both  usages  can  be  found  floating  some- 
what vaguely  through  architectural  literature, 
but  they  need  produce  no  confusion  if  both  are 
consciously  and  definitely  employed. 

The  North  Romanesque  lacks  centralization  in 
a  single  complete  edifice  which  stands  as  its  best 
embodiment,  such  as  we  see  in  St.  Sophia's,  in 
the  Pantheon,  and  even  in  the  Cologne  Cathedral. 
If  one  were  asked  to  point  out  the  most  charac- 
teristic North  Romanesque  church,  the  request 
would  be  hard  to  satisfy.  This  fact  indicates  its 
separative,  individualistic  tendency,  which  is 
often  cited  as  an  inborn  trait  of  the  Teutonic 
character.  Still  the  Teutons  do  unite  and  form 
societies,  states,  institutions.  Nay,  they  incline 
to  an  absolutism  alongside  of  their  individualism, 
which  statement  suggests  probably  their  deepest 
spiritual  scission.     Hence  they  retain  the   hier- 


486  AECHITECTUBE  —EUBOPEAm 

archy,  but  with  many  a  protest  and  even  breach. 
Every  North  Komanesque  church  is  an  individual 
standing  by  itself,  and  usually  with  its  own 
peculiarities  of  construction. 

That  which  is  most  distinctive  in  North 
Romanesque  is  its  develojimeut  of  the  tower  or 
rather  system  of  towers.  Rome  in  like  manner 
developed  a  system  of  arches,  and  Byzantium  a 
system  of  domes,  each  having  an  architectural 
significance  in  accord  with  the  spirit  of  its  people. 
The  tower  came  from  the  Italian  Romanesque, 
in  which  it  was  usually  a  structure  wholly  sepa- 
rate from  the  church.  Much  discussion  has  been 
expended  upon  the  original  purpose  of  these 
early  towers.  Apparently  they  were  employed 
for  housing  and  elevating  the  bell  (hence  the 
Italian  word  companile  from  campana,  a  bell), 
which  called  the  congregation  together.  In  the 
North  Romanesque  this  separate  tower  has  be- 
come integrated  with  the  body  of  the  church, 
and  still  further  has  been  transformed  into  a  kind 
of  type  or  pattern  which  often  repeats  itself  in 
many  different  shapes  and  sizes  springing  up 
over  the  roof  of  the  church. 

The  North  Romanesque  tower  might  be 
square,  or  octagonal,  or  even  hexagonal;  it  was 
rarely  round.  Its  strong  lines  were  vertical,  and 
its  movement  was  upward ;  usually  it  had  several 
storys  topped  out  with  a  pointed  roof.  The 
openings  showed  the  semi-circular  arch,  which 


TEE  NOBTU  BOMANESQUE.  487 

suggested  the  arched  interior .  Byzantine  influ- 
ence caused  a  large  domical  tower  to  be  placed 
over  the  crossing  of  the  nave  and  the  transept. 
Two  lofty  towers  frequently  rose  from  each 
corner  of  the  front,  two  likewise  from  the  rear. 
The  number,  shape  and  size  of  these  towers 
varied  much  in  different  churches ;  they  were  the 
elements  which  might  be  combined  in  many 
ways  for  diversifying  the  outside.  The  North 
Romanesque  played  with  towers,  producing  a 
kind  of  external  music  by  making  new  combina- 
tions of  them  and  thus  suggesting  new  har- 
monies. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  a  decided  differ- 
ence existed  between  the  outside  and  inside. 
The  one  was  emphatically  vertical  and  conducted 
the  vision  not  only  up  to  the  overroofing  dome 
(as  did  the  Byzantine),  but  seemed  to  pierce  it 
and  to  point  significantly  beyond,  to  the  Invisible. 
But  the  other,  the  interior,  still  led  forward  to 
the  apse,  to  the  seat  of  the  clergy,  even  if  the 
ribbed  arches  of  the  aisles  and  the  central  dome 
carried  look  and  thought  upward  immediately  to 
the  Divine.  Moreover  the  tower  was  outside, 
and  rose  above  the  church,  though  out  of  it, 
appealing  to  the  outsider  and  telling  him  the  pur- 
port of  the  church  by  pointing  skyward.  The 
outside  said:  **  Go  upward  to  God  directly ;  " 
the  inside  said :  '*  Go  forward  to  the  priest,  who 
will  mediate  thee  with  God;  "  thus  the  exterior 


488  ABGIIITECTUBE—EUBOPEAN. 

and  the  interior  were  in  a  degree  opposed.  Still 
they  could  be  united  in  the  thought :  through 
church  and  its  priesthood  upward  to  the  Invis- 
ible. But  this  made  the  hierarchy  the  means, 
and  changed  deeply  the  old  Basilica. 

Emphatic,  therefore,  was  thacontrast  and  even 
the  opposition  between  the  exterior  and  interior 
of  the  North  Romanesque  church.  The  one  was 
vertical,  the  other  essentially  horizontal,  though 
arched  and  domed;  the  one  was  rectilineal,  the 
other  largely  curvilineal;  the  arch  inside  was 
chiefly  supporting  and  covering,  and  hence  down- 
bearing,  while  the  towers  outside  gave  no  sup- 
port or  cover,  but  were  intensely  up-bearing, 
having  almost  no  constructive  utility  even  if  one 
of  them  might  hold  the  bell.  Still  further,  this 
arch  was  the  semi-circular  whose  single  fixed  cen- 
ter is  underneath  itself,  while  the  tower  would 
fain  direct  attention  to  its  center  as  being  above 
itself.  The  contradiction  becomes  outside  when 
the  semi-circular  arch  is  employed  for  openings 
in  the  tower  itself. 

(The  system  of  towers  in  the  North  Roman- 
esque can  be  studied  in  the  abbey-church  of 
Laach,  which  has  round,  square,  and  octagonal 
towers  of  various  sizes  on  the  same  building.  See 
also  the  church  of  the  Holy  Apostles  at  Cologne. ) 

We  can  infer  that  the  North  Romanesque  is 
by  no  means  so  sacerdotal  as  the  old  Basilica  or 
even  as  the  South  Romanesque.     The  Teutonic 


THE  NOBTH  ROMANESQUE.  489 

church  in  its  Architecture  as  well  as  in  its  spirit- 
ual character  had  always  a  protest  against  the 
Italian  hierarchy.  The  tower  points  the  out- 
sider directly  to  a  divine  communion,  though  it 
also  suggests  mediation  through  the  church  and 
its  clergy.  Which  does  it  mean?  Both  signifi- 
cations are  united  in  the  one  Komanesque  church, 
yet  with  the  dualism  apparent.  Thus  the  tower 
as  a  whole  shows  a  twofoldness  of  meaning 
which  is  characteristic  of  this  kind  of  Architec- 
ture. 

The  same  inner  contradiction  enters  decora- 
tive forms  and  produces  what  is  known  as  the 
grotesque  in  Romantic  Art,  of  which  Dante  is 
the  greatest  exponent,  particularly  in  the  In- 
ferno. To  the  classic  spirit,  the  Romanesque 
world  is  a  grotesque,  a  barbarization  of  the 
beautiful  Greco-Roman  shapes  of  sculpture, 
painting  and  poetry.  The  Latin  tongue  is  bar- 
barized (or  vulgarized,  as  Dante  says)  when 
spoken  by  the  Teuton  and  transformed  into  the 
modern  Romance  dialects.  The  grotesque  is 
essentially  the  contradiction- between  the  outer 
and  inner,  between  the  sensuous  and  the  spirit- 
ual. The  finite  form  becomes  comic,  ridiculous, 
absurd,  when  it  undertakes  to  express  the 
infinite.  The  sculptured  shapes  of  the  Saints 
writhe  and  grimace  in  a  kind  of  agony  for  being 
imprisoned  in  flesh.  That  is  the  element  of  evil 
for  which  man  is  born  to  suffer,  and  which  gets 


490  ABGHITEOTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

Jts  complete  embodiment  in  Satan  himself  and 
his  cohorts.  Eomanesque  Architecture  cannot 
help  producing  the  grotesque,  particularly  when 
it  employs  the  plastic  arts  of  the  classic  world. 
But  even  the  column  may  become  grotesque  in 
its  capital  and  shaft,  twisting  and  writhing  like 
one  of  the  damned,  for  is  it  not  heathen?  Thus 
the  Teutonic  mind,  having*  become  Christian, 
carries  the  doctrine  of  the  damnation  of  the 
heathen  into  artistic  form  itself,  seeking  to  show 
it  as  self-contradictory  and  absurd.  Classic 
beauty  must  be  unfolded  as  inherently  self- 
undoing,  and  be  transformed  into  the  opposite 
of  itself. 

If  the  Byzantine  had  a  poly-ethnic  character, 
adjusting  itself  to  many  nations  and  races,  the 
Eomanesque,  particularly  in  its  Northern  form, 
had  a  multi-tribal  character,  being  adopted  by 
every  Teutonic  tribe  and  assimilated  by  its  spirit. 
In  fact  every  community  showed  a  tendency  to 
possess  its  own  special  variety  of  Romanesque. 
To-day  many  a  German  village  takes  pride  in  its 
unique  medieval  church,  which  is  supposed  to 
express  the  individuality  of  the  place  from  the 
olden  time. 

Of  course  any  account  of  the  vast  number  of 
Romanesque  edifices  can  not  be  here  expected. 
Even  the  national  movements  can  only  be  sum- 
marized. The  Romanesque  went  up  the  Rhine, 
where  was  planted  the  ancient  culture  of  Rome, 


THE  NORTH  BOMANESqUE.  491 

and  where,  in  consequence,  it  very  slowly  took 
the  place  of  the  ancient  Basilica.  It  throve 
better  under  the  Saxon  Emperors  and  possessed 
itself  of  the  heart  of  Germany.  It  spread  over 
France  and  entered  Spain  where  it  met  Mahom- 
etan Architecture  from  which  it  received  a 
peculiar  tinge.  England  has  also  Romanesque 
churches  of  an  insular  cast. 

It  is  in  Normandy,  however,  that  we  see  most 
plainly  the  inner  tendency  of  the  Eomanesque 
to  pass  over  into  the  Gothic.  And  we  may  also 
observe  that  the  Normans,  of  all  the  Teutonic 
race,  shared  most  deeply  in  this  tendency.  The 
Norman  Romanesque  churches  of  Caen,  are 
already  half  Gothic.  The  storys  of  the  towers 
are  heightened,  the  sides  of  the  arches  are  pro- 
longed, the  tops  of  the  towers  are  more  pointed 
(see  the  f  agade  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
at  Caen ) . 

In  general,  the  lines  become  more  vertical; 
sometimes  the  Gothic  Arch  is  employed  outside 
while  the  semicircular  remains  inside.  The 
tower  is  first  Gothicized,  being  that  element  of 
the  Romanesque  which  has  the  Gothic  germ  in 
it  from  the  beginning  through  its  verticalism  and 
upwardness .  It  is  the  tower  which  produces  the 
contradiction  in  the  Romanesque  and  compels  it, 
for  the  sake  of  harmony,  to  turn  Gothic.  And 
it  is  the  spirit  of  the  tower  which  forces  the 
adoption  of  the  Pointed  Arch. 


492  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

Transition  from  the  Semi-circular  to  the 
Pointed  Arch.  Much  has  been  said  in  this 
book  concerning  the  Arch  since  its  first  accept- 
ance by  the  Komahs.  That  Roman  Arch  was 
the  semi-circular,  and  its  supremacy  was  as  little 
contested  during  the  imperial  period  as  that  of 
the  Empire  itself,  of  which  it  was  the  architect- 
ural symbol.  If  we  glance  at  the  following  cut, 
we  observe  the  wedge-shaped  voussoirs  having  a 
common  center  which  is  artificial  or  constructive 
as  distinct  from  their  natural  or  terrestrial  center. 
These  stones  have  been  tjiken  from  their  single 


natural  center  in  the  quarry,  trimmed  and  ordered, 
and  then  associated  into  the  semi-circular  Arch  by 
and  through  its  center  which  is  thus  constructive. 
They  all  push  against  one  another,  yet  they  all 
likewise  push  for  one  common  center  which  thus 
unites  them,  or  solidifies  them  into  a  single  mass 
similar  to  a  monolith.  So  Rome  by  conquest 
tore  the  nations  from  their  own  natural  and 
national  centers  and  combined  them  into  a  new 
institutional  center  which  is  her  own,  herself. 
Rome  in  the  semi-circular  Arch  beholds  Rome, 
and   thus  it    is  her  symbol,  as  well  as  her  pro- 


"THE  NOBTH  IWMAN^ESQUE.  493 

f oundest  constructive  principle.  Then  it  is  taken 
up  by  Christian  Architecture  (or  Komanic)  in 
its  Byzantine  as  well  as  its  Eomanesque  forms, 
both  of  which,  however,  develop  a  revolt  against 
its  domination.  This  revolt  is  naturally  directed 
against  the  single  center  which  controls  every 
voussoir  of  the  semi-circular  Arch. 

The  first  revolt  was  the  Mahometan  which  was 
a  schism  from  the  Byzantine.  Already  we  have 
mentioned  the  three  Mahometan  Arches,  the 
pointed  Arch,  the  horse-shoe  Arch,  and  the 
keel  Arch.  (See  preceding  pp.  452-5.)  The 
following  cut  shows   them  in    the  given    order. 


^^r2> 


The  horse-shoe  Arch  may  have  the  same  center 
as  the  semi-circle,  still  it  refuses  to  be  semi-cir- 
cular by  bulging  out  capriciously  against  the 
law  and  the  form  of  that  Arch.  The  other  two 
have  broken  away  from  the  center,  are  genuine 
rebels  against  the  old  Roman  authority.  There 
are  many  other  kinds  of  Arches  besides  the 
four  above  mentioned.  (See  twenty-six  kinds 
figured  and  named  in  Banister  Fletcher's  His- 
tory of  Architecture,  p.  494.) 

But  now  we  have  to  consider  the  second  great 
revolt  from  the  semi-circular  Arch  which  arose 


494  ARCniTECTUBE  -  EUROPEAN. 

in  Christian  lands,  and  was  the  offspring  of  the 
spiritual  development  of  Christianity.  This 
revolt  was  far  deeper  and  far  more  successful 
than  the  Mahometan,  which  fluctuated  between 
several  kinds  of  antagonistic  Arches  and  seemed 
not  quite  t(;  know  what  it  did  want.  The  Teu- 
tonic North  seized  upon  one  of  these  Mahometan 
protests,  the  Pointed  Arch,  clung  to  it  alone  and 
carried  it  out  structurally  through  the  whole 
edifice.  Here  is  its  main  form  which,  however, 
we  shall  see  varying  and  developing  within  itself. 


and     thereby    producing    different     aspects    or 
stages  of  Gothic  Architecture. 

Behold  then  the  Pointed  Arch  breaking  the 
Eound  (semi-circular)  Arch  into  two  segments 
at  the  keystone  and  making  them  movable. 
Like  the  wings  of  a  bird  they  close  or  open  from 
a  central  point.  For  this  reason  there  may  be  a 
thousand  Pointed  Arches  different  in  form  as 
well  as  in  size,  but  there  is  only  one  Round  Arch 
in  form,  though  there  may  be  many  sizes.  In 
like  manner  there  is  but  one  right  angle  in  the 
universe,  but  there  are  millions  of  acute  or  obtuse 
angles.     In  the   Pointed   Arch  the   sides   have 


THE  NOBTH  ROMANESQUE.  495 

become  movable,  and  hence  variable  as  is  the 
case  with  an  obtuse  or  acute  angle,  which  may 
be  inscribed  in  the  above  Arches. 

It  depends  upon  the  mind  or  Ego  what  degree 
of  pointedness  the  Pointed  Arch  shall  have, 
hence  it  has  a  decided  subjective  determinant. 
But  the  center  as  well  as  the  sides  of  the  Round 
Arch  are  fixed,  invariable,  and  not  determined 
as  to  form  by  the  Ego,  but  by  the  objective  law 
of  their  own  being.  We  have  the  right,  there- 
fore, to  say  that  the  Pointed  Arch,  being  more 
yielding  to  the  subject,  expresses  subjectivity 
more  than  the  Round  Arch  which  indicates 
rather  the  objective  principle,  the  one  central 
law,  to  which  all  individuals  must  submit. 
The  Ego  (within  limits)  controls  the  Pointed 
Arch,  but  is  controlled  by  the  Round  Arch,  in 
construction.  Thus  the  Pointed  Arch  empha- 
sizes the  new  supremacy  of  the  individual,  and 
prophesies  the  modern  world. 

If  you  increase  the  height  of  the  Round  Arch, 
you  must  increase  its  width  or  its  base  in  pro- 
portion. But  you  can  increase  the  height  of  the 
Pointed  Arch  without  increasing  its  width  or 
base;  you  can  make  it  tend  upward  or  to  the 
vertical  more  and  more  on  the  same  foundation. 
Hence  we  may  say  that  the  Pointed  Arch  is 
aspiring  and  seeks  to  transcend  its  limits  below 
on  the  earth. 

To  be  sure,  these  limits  must  at   last   make 

r 


4^6  ABOmTECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

themselves  valid.  On  the  one  hand  the  Pointed 
Arch  may  contract  its  sides  till  it  gets  so  vertical 
that  it  no  longer  encloses  space  and  becomes 
architecturally  impossible.  On  the  other  hand 
it  may  so  expand  its  sides  that  it  can  no  longer 
uphold  itself  as  a  mere  covering,  and  again  it 
becomes  architecturally  impossible.  Thus  too 
much  inwardness  may  end  in  self- negation  and 
too  much  outwardness  in  chaos.  Between  these 
two  extremes  the  Pointed  Arch  is  always  hover- 
ing. The  widening  of  the  Arch  by  itself  moves 
toward  the  horizontal,  the  contracting  of  the 
Arch  by  itself  moves  toward  the  vertical;  in 
either  case  its  tendency  is  to  the  rectilineal 
(Greek),  while  it  hovers  about  to  the  one-cen- 
tered Round  Arch  (Roman).  In  this  way  we 
see  that  the  Pointed  Arch  begets  the  Renascence, 
which  brings  back  the  horizontal  tie-beam  and 
the  vertical  column  of  the  old  Hellenic  pattern, 
and  also  the  semi-circular  Arch  of  imperial  Rome. 
The  introduction  of  the  Pointed  Arch  has 
often  been  referred  to  a  structural  necessity. 
Two  different  heights  of  the  same  width  may 
require  to  be  overarched,  or  two  different  widths 
of  the  same  height.  Such  contingencies  do 
occur  in  construction.  Between  two  columns  at 
a  given  distance  apart  just  one  Round  Arch  is 
possible;  if  you  diminish  the  intercolumniation, 
the  Arch  must  be  diminished  in  height.  But  the 
Pointed  Arch  can  vary  in  height  with  the  same 


THE  NORTH  BOMANESQUE.  497 

intercolumniation,  becoming  more  or  less  pointed. 
Each  Arch  is  in  its  way  limit-transcending ;  the 
tendency  of  the  Round  Arch  is  to  widen  itself 
out  and  to  enclose  more  space  (to  take  in 
more  of  the  earth,  as  Rome  did);  the  ten- 
dency of  the  Pointed  Arch  is  rather  to 
narrow  the  enclosure  below  and  to  soar  up- 
wards, to  despise  the  earth  and  reach  heaven 
(as  the  Christian  did).  The  Round  Arch  is  im- 
perial, papal,  authoritative,  bringing  all  the  out- 
side world  to  one  center;  the  Pointed  Arch 
breaks  up  the  one  center,  and  starts  to  train 
every  individual  to  have  his  own  center,  —  to  be 
his  own  authority  —  an  education  which  has  not 
yet  stopped. 

The  twofoldness  of  the  Arch  is  already  in  the 
keystone  of  the  Round  Arch,  but  is  not  yet  fully 
explicit.  It  thrusts  in  two  segments,  along  two 
curvatures  in  opposite  directions.  The  point  of 
separation  in  the  Round  Arch  is  not  pronounced, 
while  in  the  Pointed  Arch  it  is  the  emphatic 
thing,  is  given  a  form,  and  hence  is  explicit.  In 
the  Pointed  Style  (the  Gothic),  attention  is  al- 
ways carried  to  the  Point,  every  line  runs  to  a 
Point.  Now  the  characteristic  of  the  Point  is 
that  it  is  space-annulling,  negates  length,  breadth, 
and  thickness,  and  becomes  purely  ideal.  No 
mortal  eye  ever  saw  a  geometric  Point ;  it  is  an 
object  of  inner  vision  only,  or  rather  of  thought. 
Pointed  Architecture  runs  up  on  every  line  to  the 

32 


498  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

ideal;  every  material  part  of  the  structure,  hav- 
ing length,  breadth,  and  thickness,  is  seen  mov- 
ing toward  what  is  non-material,  the  Point;  all 
visibility,  when  Gothicized,  is  made  to  sweep 
upward  to  the  Invisible. 

But  we  are  to  keep  in  mind  the  negative  side 
of  this  Pointed  Movement.  We  see  that  Archi- 
tecture whose  nature  is  to  be  space-enclosing,  has 
gone  far  toward  self -negation,  showing  a  decided 
tendency  in  the  Gothic  to  commit  suicide.  The 
Pointed  Arch,  if  carried  out  logically,  that  is 
completely,  annihilates  the  Arch  as  a  structural 
principle.  If  all  Architecture  is  determined 
to  a  Point,  it  perishes  as  extended,  as  filling 
space  and  enclosing  space.  In  this  fact  we  can 
see  the  necessity  of  the  Renascence  for  saving 
Architecture,  which  had  to  take  flight  back  to 
its  European  mother,  the  Classic  world,  and  to 
renew  its  endangered  life  by  fresh  draughts  of 
the  Greek  column  and  tie-beam,  and  of  the 
Roman  semi- circular  Arch. 

Here  we  may  glance  at  the  various  centers, 
which  have  shown  themselves  in  Architecture. 
In  all  forms  of  construction  built  upon  the 
surface  of  the  earth,  there  is  the  one  natural, 
terrestrial  center  through  gravity.  This  one 
center  is  in  all  stratified  building,  like  that  of 
the  Greek  and  Oriental.  But  with  the  Roman 
Arch  (semi-circular)  two  centers  appear,  the 
natural  and  the  constructive  (see  preceding  pp. 


THE  GOTHIC .  499 

235-6),  wherein  is  the  first  separation  and  mas- 
tery of  mere  heavy,  down-bearing  Nature.  But 
now  the  one  fixed  constructive  center  of  the 
semi-circular  Arch  divides,  and  becomes  twofold 
and  manifold,  and  hence  movable,  making  a 
great  diversity  of  Arches,  of  which  the  Pointed 
is  the  only  one  which  has  developed  a  special 
style  of  Architecture  (the  Gothic,  which  is  said 
to  have  been  originally  a  nick-name  applied  by 
the  Italians  to  this  new  style  coming  from  the 
Teutonic  North,  as  did  their  old  barbarous  con- 
querors, the  Goths). 

C.  The  Gothic. 

The  Gothic  has  a  central  principle  so  manifest 
in  every  part,  and  so  simple  in  all  its  details  that 
it  falls  into  the  eye  at  first  glance  and  remains  to 
the  end.  This  unity  permeating  and  transfusing, 
and,  we  might  say,  transfiguring  the  entire  struc- 
ture however  vast,  is  the  strongest  charm  as  well 
as  the  ultimate  artistic  fact  of  Gothic  Architec- 
ture. At  once  the  outer  vision  as  well  as  the 
inner  soul  spring  together  upon  the  Pointed  Arch 
as  their  own  common  center  architecturally 
uttered  in  the  massive  pile  with  its  varied  ex- 
ternal forms  of  tower,  pinnacle,  arch,  portal,  and 
with  its  varied  internal  forms  of  vaulted  ceilings, 
arched  aisles,  chapels,  and  windows  of  stained 
glass.     An  all-dominating   sense   of  unity,  har- 


500  ARCHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

mony  and  proportion  pervades  the  Gothic  Church, 
fn  contrast  to  the  previous  separative  North 
Eomanesque  with  its  struggle  between  inner  and 
outer,  between  the  vertical  and  the  horizontal, 
between  the  curvilineal  and  the  rectilineal,  be- 
tween individual  freedom  and  central  authority, 
between  an  immediate  God  of  the  heart  and  con- 
science and  a  mediated  God  of  organized  sacer- 
dotalism. 

And  still  the  Gothic  must  have  its  process  and 
hence  its  separation  also.  This  will  in  its  sphere 
be  deeper  than  any  previous  separation  of  Eoman- 
esque, Eomanic,  or  Eoman.  These  have  adopted, 
seemingly  without  question,  the  semi-circular 
Arch  of  Eome  with  its  all-determining  center  for 
its  constituent  elements,  the  voussoirs.  The 
commCinities  of  the  Eoman  World,  be  this 
Heathen,  Byzantine,  or  Papal,  constitute  the 
mighty  institutional  Arch  of  which  there  was  the 
single  central  city  of  authority  ultimately  con- 
trolling every  communal  member  in  its  secular  or 
religious  character,  and  sometimes  in  both.  But 
now  that  single  center  of  the  semi-circular  Arch, 
and  with  it  of  course  the  Arch  itself,  is  assailed, 
separated,  disrupted;  then  out  of  this  central 
separation  proceeds  a  new  and  completely  organ- 
ized and  unified  system  of  Architecture,  the 
Gothic.  For  the  new  Arch,  springing  from  this 
divided  center,  is  also  divided  into  two  sides, 
which    come  together  to   a  point,  an<X  nence  is 


THE  GOTHIC.  501 

called  Pointed.  Moreover  these  new  centers  are 
movable  and  travel  outwards  in  opposite  direc- 
tions from  the  old  single  center,  the  effect  of 
which  (as  we  shall  soon  see),  is  to  contract  the 
sides  of  the  Arch,  making  it  more  pointed. 
Thus  the  center,  once  so  firmly  fixed  in  the  semi- 
circular Arch,  is  whirled  into  the  architectural 
process,  and  will  in  its  variation  show  the  essen- 
tial stages  of  the  Gothic. 

I.  This  separating,  movable  center  is  the 
main  thing  to  be  considered.  It  becomes  two 
centers  from  each  of  which  a  side  of  the  Pointed 
Arch  is  drawn.     In  the  following  cut  these  vari- 


^ 


ous  items  are  illustrated.  The  center  of  the 
corresponding  semi-circular  Arch  (with  radius 
from  the  apex  of  the  inscribed  triangle  or  key- 
stone) is  shown  by  the  small  hollow  circle,  while 
the  two  separating  centers  of  the  Pointed  Arch 
are  indicated  by  the  black  dots. 

Now  let  us  conceive  the  first  separation  from 
the  original  center  in  both  directions,  starting 
with  the  middle  figure »  Firsts  the  two  divided 
centers,  moving  forth  from  the  one  center  in 
opposite  directions,  are  taken  as  lying  within  the 
base  of  the  inscribed  triangle  (or  of  the  arch). 


502  ABCHITECTUBE^EUBOPEAN. 

Prom  each  of  these  centers  (the  black  dots) 
draw  the  opposite  arcs ;  each  of  them  will  be  a 
side  of  a  Pointed  Arch,  the  radii  crossing  each 
other.  Secondly,  take  the  first  figure  and  do 
likewise,  changing  the  two  centers  to  the  corners 
of  the  inscribed  triangle.  On  comparing  these 
two  Arches,  the  second  will  be  found  more 
pointed  than  the  first,  and  we  see  that  the  further 
the  two  centers  are  removed  from  the  common 
fixed  center  of  the  semi-circular  Arch,  the  sides 
contract  and  the  pointedness  increases.  Thirdly, 
take  the  last  figure,  and  throw  the  two  centers 
outside  the  corners  of  the  inscribed  triangle, 
drawing  again  the  two  arcs  with  crossed  radii .  The 
Arch  becomes  more  pointed  than  ever,  its  sides 
are  rapidly  coming  together,  while  its  space- 
enclosing  power  is  proportionately  diminished. 
More  and  more  vertical  it  is  becoming,  hence  we 
say  that  the  Gothic  moves  toward  verticalism 
more  and  more  till  architectural  suicide  stares  it 
in  the  face. 

It  is  evident  that  the  Pointed  Arch  in  the  first 
figure  is  intermediate  between  the  other  two, 
and  is  moreover  fixed,  being  determined  from  an 
invariable  point,  which  makes  it  always  of  the 
same  form  though  of  different  sizes.  It  is 
called  the  equilateral  Pointed  Arch,  from  the 
inscribed  triangle.  But  the  other  two  are  varia- 
ble both  in  form  and  size.  The  second  figure 
shows  what   is  specially  named  the   drop  Arch 


THE  GOTHIC.  503 

(Pointed),  and  is  nearest  to  the  semi-circular 
or  round  form,  out  of  which  it  develops  an  in- 
creasing pointedness  as  its  two  centers  move 
toward  the  corners  of  the  base  of  the  equilat- 
eral Pointed  Arch,  which  is  its  limit.  Beyond 
these  two  corners  the  two  centers  still  keep 
moving  in  opposite  directions  toward  the  unlim- 
ited, which  fact  is  indicated  in  the  third  figure 
of  the  cut,  which  shows  what  is  called  the  lancet 
Arch  (Pointed).  Thus  we  have  the  three  kinds 
of  Pointed  Arch:  the  equilateral,  which  is 
invariable;  the  drop,  which  is  variable  within 
given  limits,  being  bounded  on  both  sides ;  the 
lancet,  which  is  indefinitely  variable,  being 
bounded  on  one  side.  Of  the  two  latter  there 
may  be  thousands  of  forms,  more  or  less 
pointed,  inside  their  bounds;  but  of  the  first 
one  there  is  but  a  single  form.  Thus  the  ^equi- 
lateral Pointed  Arch,  though  determined  from 
two  centers,  is  as  fixed  as  the  semi-circular 
Arch  determined  from  one  center. 

From  the  preceding  account  it  is  not  hard  to 
see  that  the  equilateral  Arch  is  the  Norm  of  the 
whole  Pointed  System,  the  fixed  law  for  judging 
its  variations  and  transgressions,  the  mean  in  all 
its  extremes.  The  movement  of  Gothic  Archi- 
tecture hovers  about  its  one  definite  basic  form, 
this  equilateral  Pointed  Arch.  It  may  be  here 
noted  that  the  lancet  shape  is  farthest  removed 
from  the  semi-circular  Arch,  with  its  fixed  single 


504  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

center,  farthest  from  Rome  let  us  say.  Sugges- 
tive, therefore,  is  the  fact  that  this  lancet  shape 
was  especially  developed  in  England,  always 
asserting  its  insular  individuality.  Still  the 
lancet  Arch  is  known  elsewhere  and  belongs  to 
the  general  development  of  the  Gothic.  This 
begins,  as  historians  of  Architecture  tell  us, 
with  the  lower  and  heavier  form  of  the  drop 
Arch  (second  figure)  in  the  12th  century;  then 
it  passes  to  the  intermediate  equilateral  Arch 
(first  figure)  in  the  13th  century,  which  is 
found  in  the  best  edifices  of  the  best  period ; 
finally  the  lancet  Arch  (third  figure)  becomes 
frequent  in  the  14th  century,  indicating  decline 
and  the  coming  end.  Such  is  the  general  move- 
ment, yet  with  exceptions  all  along  the  line.  It 
is  evident,  however,  that  there  is  an  historic 
tendency  to  move  away  from  the  single  center 
of  the  semi-circular  Arch  to  the  indefinite  Be- 
yond whence  no  Arch  is  possible. 

Gothic  is  the  varied  play  of  these  manifold 
Pointed  Arches,  inside  and  outside  the  edifice, 
transforming  every  organic  shape  as  well  as 
every  ornament  after  their  pattern.  Undoubtedly 
decoration  often  breaks  loose  from  construction, 
and  defies  the  fundamental  norm,  or  the  archety- 
pal Pointed  Arch  chosen  for  the  structure ;  but 
this  restlessness  occurs  chiefly  in  later  Gothic, 
when  dissolution  has  set  in. 

II.  The  Gothic  is,  then,  Gothic  through  its 


THE  GOTHIC.  505 

Pointed  Arch.  But  the  Gothic  is  also  Roman- 
esque in  the  wide  sense  of  the  word,  for  it  retains 
the  Eomanesque  tower  or  system  of  towers,  of 
course  transformed  into  harmony  with  the  cen- 
tral principle ;  likewise  it  keeps  and  develops  the 
ribbed  vaulting  and  much  of  the  inner  arrange- 
ment of  the  Romanesque.  The  Gothic  is  also 
Romanic,  preserving  the  form  of  the  Basilica 
with  its  transept,  and  with  the  Latin  Cross  as 
ground-plan;  it  still  remains  sacerdotal  though 
with  a  new  and  stronger  protest.  Finally  the 
Gothic  is  European  since  it  represents  a  very 
pronounced  phase  of  the  great  struggle  of 
Europe's  Architecture  between  the  down-bear- 
ing and  the  up-bearing  principles,  and  exhibits  a 
decided  triumph  of  the  latter  in  its  ever-ascend- 
ing pointed  verticalism.  In  fact  the  Gothic 
tower  slanting  up wapds  and  breaking  out  on  its  way 
into  a  hundred  lesser  turrets  and  finials,  is  the 
extreme  expression  of  the  up-bearing  tendency 
in  all  European  construction,  so  extreme  that  it 
is  one-sided  and  fantastic.  For  many  of  us, 
however,  this  does  not  hurt  its  beauty  or  lessen 
its  power  of  pr-oducing  an  inner  exaltation  of 
spirit,  as  we  look  up  along  its  tapering  heights. 
In  this  way  glancing  back  thRough  the  total 
order  of  European  Architecture  with  its  divisions 
and  sub-divisions,  we  seek  to  find  the  place  of 
the  Gothic  and  grasp  its  essential  thought  in  the 
line  of  constructive  evolution.     In  the  present 


506  ABCHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

connection  we  may  add  that  it  keeps  the  interior 
of  the  old  Basilica  and  develops  the  same,  but  it 
proceeds  to  exteriorize  completely  and  to  mani- 
fest to  the  world  what  is  within,  hinting  that  the 
outer  life  must  be  made  the  harmonious  counter- 
part of  the  inner. 

Many  think  that  the  outside  of  the  Gothic 
Cathedral  is  more  impressive  than  the  inside. 
This  is  the  only  style  of  Christian  Archtec- 
ture  of  which  such  a  statement  can  be  made, 
for  the  movement  has  been  on  the  whole  from 
within  outwards.  We  recollect  that  in  the  early 
Komanic  the  outer  was  neglected,  if  not  despised. 
But  in  the  Gothic  the  trend  is  the  other  way. 
The  result  is  a  beauty  of  external  expression 
which  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  Romanic  Archi- 
tecture. The  interior  has  broken  through  its 
shell  and  transformed  it  into  completely  devel- 
oped Art.  In  this  regard  the  Greek  and  the 
Gothic  are  similar,  though  very  different  in 
other  respects.  Moreover,  an  architectural 
modulus  begins  to  show  itself  again,  such  as  we 
saw  in  the  Greek  temple . 

The  Gothic  is  the  most  completely  artistic  of 
all  Architecture  since  the  Greek,  the  one  repre- 
senting the  Classic,  the  other  the  Christian  (or 
Romantic)  in  Art.  The  very  nomenclature  of  its 
forms  has  a  poetic  coloring;  the  dictionary  of 
Gothic  terms  has  an  imaginative  tinge.     We  feel 


THE  GOTHIC,  507 

the  kinship  to  the  fairy-tale  of  the  North  with 
its  world  of  romance  and  idealism.  Utility  is 
slapped  in  the  face  at  every  turn  by  Gothi- 
cism.  It  is  the  realization  of^  the  Idea  in  Ger- 
man fashion,  fantastic  in  the  highest  degree, 
yet  with  a  formal,  schematic  element  per- 
vading it  through  and  through.  Poets  of  the 
same  age  show  this  characteristic.  Our  Chaucer 
has  something  of  it  in  his  Latinized  Saxon.  But 
Dante,  writing  in  his  new-boin  Italian,  is  the 
best  example  ;*  his  great  poem  has  often  been 
compared  to  a  Gothic  Cathedral  on  account  of 
its  architectonic  proportions,  its  religious  inten- 
sity along  with  the  aspiration  for  freedom,  its 
marvelous  spontaneity  united  with  a  somewhat 
rigid  formalism,  its  outer  artistic  manifestation 
in  correspondence  with  its  inner  all-compelling 
spirit. 

The  Arabian  had  also  this  fantastic  side,  this 
capricious  imagination,  and  its  fairy-tale 
(Thousand  and  one  Nights).  The  Arabian  had 
likewise  the  Pointed  Arch,  but  never  made  it 
organic,  the  architectural  unit  of  a  great  system 
or  style.  This  was  the  work  of  the  Teutonic 
Spirit  in  Northern  Europe. 

III.  Where,  when,  and  how  did  the  Gothic 
originate?  Upon  these  points  there  has  been  a 
good  deal  of  discussion  and  no  small  difference 
of  opinion.  There  is  now  a  pretty  general  agree- 
ment that  it  did  not  arise  in  any  German-speak- 


508  ABC EITEC  TUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

ing  country  along  or  beyond  the  Ehine,  in  spite 
nof  its  decided  Teutonism.  It  is  connected  with 
the  Normans  (Norsemen),  one  of  the  last  of 
those  Teutonic  waves  which  swept  down  over 
central  and  southern  Europe  from  the  North. 
A  contingent  of  Normans  invaded  France  in  the 
10th  century  and,  settling  in  Normandy,  had  be- 
come Latinized  in  speech  and  culture  for  several 
generations  when  they  started  forth  afresh,  con- 
quering England  on  the  North  (1066)  and 
Sicily  on  the  South  (1061),  the  'latter  from  the 
Arabians.  It  was  in  Sicily  that  the  Normans 
found  the  Pointed  Arch  which  was  employed  in 
Mahometan  Architecture.  Thence  they  carried 
it  to  Normandy,  which  is  usually  considered  the 
home  of  the  Gothic.  Other  streams  of  influ- 
ence may  have  assisted  in  bringing  the  Pointed 
Arch  into  Europe  from  the  East  and  from  the 
Moors  of  Spain.  We  have  already  seen  that 
Mahometan  construction  was  in  a  state  of  deep 
protest  concerning  the  Roman  (semi-circular) 
Arch,  against  whose  single  center  with  its  fixed 
abstract  law  the  Oriental  mind  has  always  re- 
volted. The  absolutism  of  the  Orient  is  not 
that  of  Law  but  that  of  Caprice  in  the  absolute 
ruler,  yea  in  God  Himself.  So  we  have  seen 
the  Saracens  employing  the  horse-shoe  Arch, 
the  keel  Arch,  as  well  as  the  Pointed  Arch,  in  a 
kind  of  hostility  to  the  Roman  centralized  Arch. 
Thus  the  Mahometan  protest  and  the  Christian 


THE  GOTHIC,  509 

protest  clasp  hands  in  a  common  architectural 
form,  which  expresses  their  common  protest 
against  all-dominating  Rome,  Byzantine  and 
Papal. 

The  Arabians,  however,  did  not  invent  the 
Pointed  Arch.  Indeed  it  reaches  far  back  into 
Asia  and  Europe.  It  is  found  in  early  Assyrian 
and  Egyptian  monuments  in  its  genuine  form ; 
its  shape,  though  constructed  by  horizontal 
layers,  can  be  observed  in  old  Pelasgic  masonry. 
Thus  it  goes  back  to  that  original  structural 
protoplasm  which  we  find  among  all  early  peo- 
ples. Still  its  inherent  power  was  not  developed 
till  the  Normans  took  it  and  realized  its  latent 
possibility  in  a  new  style  of  Architecture.  In 
like  manner  we  have  seen  the  Romans  first  de- 
veloping the  long-known  semi-circular  Arch, 
making  it  national  and  institutional.  Now  comes 
the  turn  of  the  Pointed  Arch,  hitherto  regarded 
as  a  sort  of  caprice  or  plaything.  It  enters  the 
Roman  and  Romanesque  building,  gets  into  the 
very  center  of  its  semi-circular  Arch,  splits  the 
same  in  twain,  and  reconstructs  the  whole  edifice 
through  and  through  after  its  own  principle. 

Again  we  must  note  that  an  architectural  form 
can  be  known  long  before  it  is  truly  utilized  and 
made  the  principle  of  a  great  constructive  change. 
The  spirit  of  the  Ages  must  be  ready  to  seize  it 
and  to  socialize  it  in  a  new  edifice  corresponding 
to  the  time.     The  Pointed  Arch  wandered  about 


610  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

like  a  lost  ghost  over  the  East  and  the  West,  ap- 
pearing here  and  there  at  certain  seasons,  and 
then  vanishing  as  if  uncertain  of  its  own  reality, 
till  the  Norman  in  Sicily  saw  it  and  caught  it, 
saying:  **  Thou  art  what  I  am,  come  with  me." 
He  took  it  to  his  home  in  Normandy,  embodied 
it  in  a  new  edifice  from  which  it  spread  to  En- 
gland and  built  itself  into  all  those  English  Ca- 
thedrals, still  the  fairest  artistic  jewels  of  the 
land.  In  another  direction  it  passed  to  the 
Khine  and  beyond,  where  it  seemed  to  find  its 
true  home  after  its  long  wandering  in  alien 
countries.  To-day  Germany  claims  it  as  pecu- 
liarly her  own,  and  has  not  failed  to  demonstrate 
her  Gothic  love  in  many  ways,  even  in  pitched 
literary  battles. 

IV.  But  the  new  Architecture  did  not  quietly 
remain  in  the  North.  It  passed  rapidly  South- 
ward, entered  Italy,  the  home  of  classic  tradition 
and  of  the  semi-circular  Arch,  traversing  the 
whole  length  of  that  country  back  to  Sicily,  its 
primal  starting-point.  Thus  it  completes  its 
territorial  cycle  of  Western  Europe,  for  the 
Gothic  could  not  conquer  the  East  and  never 
shook  the  Byzantine  on  Greek  soil.  In  its 
course  through  Italy  it  has  left  many  fine 
examples  of  itself  in  sacred  edifices;  still  it 
changes,  it  gets  Italianized,  and  in  the  beautiful 
cathedrals  of  Tuscany  (notably  in  those  of 
Orvieto  and  Sienna)  we  can  see  the  wrestle  be- 


THE  GOTHIC.  511 

tween  the  foreign  Gothic  and  the  native  Classic 
with  the  outlook  upon  the  expulsion  of  the 
stranger  in  the  coming  Renascence . 

It  will  always  be  something  of  a  problem  why 
the  Latinized  Normans  should  develop  the 
Gothic  instead  of  some  German-speaking  tribe 
on  or  over  theRhine.  We  must,  however,  recol- 
lect that  these  Normans  were  also  of  the  Teutonic 
race,  were  indeed  about  the  last  layer  of  North- 
ern barbarians,  were  more  vigorous  than  the 
Franks  who  had  gone  to  pieces  after  the  time 
of  Charlemagne.  The  Normans  were  also  hardy 
mariners  and  had  been  trained  to  the  freedom  of 
the  sea.  They  seem  to  have  retained  more  of 
the  original  Teutonic  Spirit  of  the  North  than 
the  other  invaders  of  the  Roman  Empire  sprung 
of  the  same  general  stock.  In  the  Romanesque 
churches  of  Normandy,  specially  those  of  Caen, 
the  Gothic  spirit  is  already  seen  pushing  through 
the  architectural  forms,  and  preparing  them  for 
the  transition.  Finally  the  special  opportunity 
came  to  the  Normans  through  their  contact  with 
the  Arabians  of  Sicily. 

Somewhere  about  1160-70  the  fully  developed 
Gothic  shows  itself  in  Normandy  and  Northern 
France,  a  century  after  the  Norman  invasions  of 
Sicily  and  England.  It  would  seem  to  be  the 
product  of  a  great  and  national  expansion.  The 
same  aspiring  spirit  which  found  a  vent  in  dar- 
ing foreign    enterprises  expressed  itself  in  the 


512  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPE  AN. 

new  Architecture.  The  Gothic  flower  soon  ma- 
tured, and  its  bloom  histed  hardly  200  years, 
when  it  began  to  decline,  lasting  some  200  years 
longer  till  the  Kenascence . 

V.  Of  the  multitudinous  details  which  center 
around  the  Gothic  Arch  in  its  varied  develop- 
ment, we  can  here  give  no  account.  Its  thrust 
and  counter-thrust  are  shown  in  the  massive 
buttresses  and  specially  in  the  flying-buttresses 
which  are  also  found  in  the  Romanesque,  but  by 
no  means  so  fully  developed,  though  they  are 
really  more  needed,  for  the  thrust  of  the  semi- 
circular Arch  is  more  lateral  or  less  vertical 
than  that  of  the  Pointed  Arch.  Thus  we  see  the 
structural  compromise  or  equilibrium  between 
two  opposing  forces,  the  outward  and  the  inward. 
The  Gothic  by  nature  is  seeking  to  exteriorize 
its  interior,  to  push  outward  toward  the  indefi- 
nite, the  unbounded.  The  flying-buttress  seems 
literally  to  fly  from  the  outside  in  order  to  resist 
the  mighty  push  from  the  inside,  lest  the  whole 
building  go  asunder  in  the  stress  of  getting  out 
of  its  limited  self  into  the  unlimited.  Here  we 
note  the  dualism  of  the  Germanic  spirit  archi- 
tecturally embodied :  the  strong  inner  aspiration 
for  freedom,  coupled  with  an  equally  strong 
outer  repression  and  absolutism.  At  first  the 
pressure  from  within  is  the  greater ;  but  at  last 
the   pressure    from    without   is   the  dominating 


THE  GOTHIC.  613 

power,  and  forces  the  structure  upward  and 
together,  and  then  its  end  has  come. 

The  tower  with  its  bell  we  have  noted,  but  the 
clock  in  it  should  not  be  forgotten.  The  church 
ordered  for  its  little  environment  the  lapse  of 
Time  by  its  divisions,  matin,  angelus,  curfew; 
thej)eople  could  not  read  but  they  heard;  the 
individual  did  not  carry  his  own  time-piece  and 
adjust  himself  to  it,  but  to  that  of  the  church. 
The  watch  in  the  pocket  is  quite  a  little  symbol 
of  freedom. 

The  influence  of  climate  is  not  to  be  forgotten . 
Gothic  Architecture  with  its  Pointed  Arch  has 
been  sometimes  derived  from  the  steep  roof  nec- 
essary for  shedding  the  snows  of  a  Northern 
winter.  Such  a  roof  in  Italy  seems  out  of 
place.  The  Gothic  suggests  also  an  icicle  Archi- 
tecture which  would  melt  under  a  Southern  sun. 
The  famous  saying  of  a  German  author  that 
Architecture  is  frozen  music  calls  up  in  most 
minds  not  the  Greek  but  the  Gothic.  The  sun 
in  the  North  gives  a  more  varied  play  of  light 
and  shade  with  its  slanting  rays  than  in  the 
South  where  its  rays,  being  on  the  whole  more 
vertical,  show  more  pronounced  outlines;  the 
classic  form  is  naturally  sunny  and  should  be 
fully  sunlit.  But  Gothic  forms  have  a  shadowy 
counterpart  and  have  to  be  seen  in  a  kind  of 
twilight,  suggesting  the  moonlit  German  Fairy 


6 14  AjRCHITECTURE  —  EVBOPEAN. 

Tale  \ci  contrast  with  the  clear  daylight  of  the 
Greek  Mythos. 

And  Gothic  Architecture  has  its  tragedy  as 
well  as  Greek.  In  the  Pointed  Arch  itself  we 
come  upon  the  tragic  limitation ;  it  cannot  com- 
plete itself  without  destroying  itself.  In  the 
Greek  architrave  we  saw  a  similar  limitation ;  it 
could  not  develop  and  enclose  more  space  with- 
out sacrificing  the  building  itself.  All  Archi- 
tecture is  essentially  space-enclosing  and  must 
develop  more  and  more  in  that  direction ;  both 
Greek  and  Gothic  reach  the  point  where  they 
can  enclose  no  more  and  so  must  be  transcended. 

With  the  conclusion  of  the  Gothic  the  entire 
Romanic  Style  has  run  its  course.  This  is  what 
commonly  goes  under  the  name  of  Christian 
Architecture,  which  has  now  ended  its  creative 
days  till  perchance  a  new  epoch  and  a  new  spirit 
may  make  it  productive  once  more.  Meanwhile 
another  stream  has  flowed  into  our  horizon,  and 
must  be  explored. 


Section  Third. — The  Renascence  Style. 

In  the  movement  of  European  Architecture  as 
a  whole,  the  third  stage  now  appears,  which  we 
call  the  Renascence  (known  usually  under  its 
French  name  Renaissance)^  the  new  Birth  of 
the  Spirit,  the  rejuvenation  of  the  Arts,  among 
them  the  architectonic.  Its  essential  nature  is  a 
going-back  to  the  Classic  World,  a  return  of  the 
Spirit  upon  itself,  after  a  long  spell  of  inner  ten- 
sion and  separation.  Three  stages  of  Europe's 
psychologic  or  rather  pampsychical  movement 
we  have  now  beheld,  truly  the  deepest  fact  of  it. 

Romanic  Architecture,  in  all  forms,  Byzantine, 
Romanesque,  Gothic,  was  substantially  a  relig- 
ious, or  even  a  sacerdotal  Architecture.  But 
this  has  now  delivered  its  message,  it  has 
creatively  nothing  more  to  say.  The  Gothic,  the 
Romanesque,  the  Byzantine,  have  seeminolv  run 

(515) 


516  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

their  course  and  are  as  exhausted  in  originality  as 
is  the  old  Greek  temple.  This  does  not  mean 
that  they  are  no  longer  to  be  built.  They  still 
serve  their  religious  purpose,  and  probably  more 
churches  of  the  Gothic  pattern  have  recently 
been  erected  than  ever  before.  In  American 
cities  particularly  the  increase  has  been  very 
large.  But  these  modern  Gothic  churches  are 
mainly  copies  of  a  type  which  another  age 
created  and  developed.  So  we  say  that  at  the 
opening  of  the  Renascence,  more  than  400  years 
ago,  medieval  religious  Architecture  had  de- 
livered its  message.  And  there  was  another 
message  waiting  for  delivery  which  could  not  be 
expressed  in  the  building  speech  of  that  time. 
A  new  constructive  utterance  must  be  found  for 
the  new  Spirit  of  the  Age. 

This  new  Spirit  has  become^secuJaHjas  well  as 
religious.  In  the  Middle  Ages  religion  undoubt- 
edly reconciled  man  with  God,  but  made  him 
hostile  to  the  world ;  but  with  this  he  must  also 
become  reconciled  in  order  to  be  completely  har- 
monious. During  the  Eenascence  the  human 
mind  starts  to  turn  to  Nature,  to  study  it  sym- 
pathetically, and  to  re-create  it  in  the  form  of 
Science.  But  chiefly  the  secular  institutional 
sphere—  the  Family,  the  State,  and  the  socio- 
economic Order  —  begins  to  assert  itself  with  a 
vehemence  in  proportion  to  its  long  suppression. 
It  refuses  to  occupy  merely  a  tolerated,  subor- 


THE  BENASGENCE.  ol7 

dinate  place  in  the  Social  System,  but  takes 
position  alongside  of  the  religious  Institution,  the 
Church,  heretofore  all-dominating,  which,  how- 
ever, has  grown  to  be  limited  and  inadequate. 

Such  is  the  new  institutional  Spirit  which  is 
next  to  build  its  Home  as  another  addition  to  the 
total  architectural  Temple  of  Time.  It  goes  for 
its  instruction  and  its  examples  to  ancient  im- 
perial Eome,  which  we  have  already  seen  devel- 
oping a  noble  secular  Architecture  expressive  of 
the  vastness  of  its  public  life  embracing  quite  the 
civilized  world. 

I.  What  building  of  imperial  Rome  will  the 
new  Architecture  take  as  its  starting-point?  We 
recollect  that  the  early  Christian  selected  for  his 
church  the  ancient  Basilica  which  remains  the 
fundamental  Norm  through  the  whole  Romanic 
movement  to  its  end  in  the  Gothic.  The  Renas- 
cence, however,  will  take  the  ancient  dwelling- 
house  as  its  beginning,  the  home  of  the  Family. 
Thus  the  new  Architecture  starts  with  the  abode 
of  the  domestic  Institution,  the  primal  secular 
Institution,  foundation  of  all  the  rest.  Then  it 
will  introduce  constructive  forms  from  other 
Roman  buildings,  the  Baths,  the  Theaters,  the 
Basilicas,  and  the  Forums,  as  it  moves  forward 
to  erect  other  institutional  structures. 

The  question  now  comes  up :  What  is  the  pri- 
mordial architectural  act  of  the  Renascence,  as 
manifested  in  this  selection  ?    The  Roman  House, 


618  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

as  we  may  see  in  Pompeii,  was  built  with  an 
inner  court  somewhat  oblong  usually,  and  open 
to  the  sky.  The  fact  which  we  wish  here  to 
emphasize  is  that  around  this  court  ran  a  Peri- 
style which  turned  inward,  not  outward  as  in  the 
Greek  temple,  nor  is  it  inside  the  walls  of  the  edi- 
fice, as  in  the  Komariic  Basilica.  Again  the  self- 
returning  colonnade  which  opened  Classic  Archi- 
tecture, after  being  interiorized  by  Eomanic 
Architecture,  is  exteriorized;  but  this  exterior- 
izing is  inward.  Thus  we  see  the  three  leading 
Styles  of  the  European  Type  unfolding  through 
the  movement  of  the  Greek  Peristyle,  with  which 
it  began  its  long  career  far  back  in  ancient 
Hellas. 

Now  the  Architecture  of  the  Kenascence  takes 
the  Roman  House  and  develops  it  into  the  Italian 
Palazzo.  This  development,  though  certainly 
suggested  by  Rome,  starts  at  Florence,  for  rea- 
sons which  we  shall  seek  to  give  hereafter. 
Note  here  the  three  essential  elements  of  this 
Palazzo.  First  is  the  outer  enclosing  wall  with 
its  f agade ;  second  is  the  enclosed  space  with  its 
divisions  into  rooms,  or  the  House  proper ;  third 
16  the  peristylar  court,  whose  colonnades  in  the 
Renascence  might  be  trabeated  or  arcuated. 

In  the  old  Greco-Roman  or  Pompeian  House 
the  exterior  was  neglected,  while  in  the  Renas- 
cence it  was  very  fully  developed ;  the  outside 
is  made  to  correspond  with  the  inside.     The  in- 


THE  BENASCENCE.  519 

terior  development  of  the  Palazzo  is  largely  de- 
rived from  that  of  the  Koman  Public  Building, 
while  the  court  is  taken  from  the  private  dwell- 
ing. It  is  evident  that  the  Palazzo  puts  together 
the  Roman  public  and  private  edifice ;  we  may 
see  in  the  mind's  eye  the  previously  neglected  or 
rather  undeveloped  domestic  abode  developing 
from  its  center,  the  court,  and  taking  on  in  its 
movement  and  absorbing  into  its  new  architec- 
tural life  the  interior  forms  of  the  Baths  of 
Diocletian  and  the  exterior  forms  of  the  Colos- 
seum. Mark  again,  it  is  the  Home  of  the  Family 
which  is  doing  this  and  thereby  marking  the  rise 
of  another  era. 

Here  recurs,  what  we  have  already  repeatedly 
noted,  the  fact  that  the  constructive  principle  of 
the  coming  Architecture  had  long  been  known 
before  it  was  employed  to  build  the  new  Home 
of  the  Institution.  The  dwelling-house  with  its 
court  is  not  only  Roman  but  also  Greek ;  the 
abode  of  Ulysses,  as  we  may  catch  from  cursory 
glimpses  given  in  the  Odyssey,  had  this  arrange- 
ment. In  its  rudimentary  stage,  it  may  be 
found  still  farther  back.  Thus  it  belongs  to 
that  primeval  constructive  protoplasm  to  which 
we  have  traced  all  structural  forms  in  their  germ. 
Like  the  Greek  Column,  like  the  Roman  Arch, 
and  even  like  the  Pointed  Arch,  the  simple 
dwelling-house  with  its  court,  though  long  exis- 
tent, had  to  wait  till  its  Institution  (the  Family) 


520  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAK. 

had  developed  to  that  degree  at  which  it  could  be 
taken  up  and  made  truly  architectural,  namely 
made  the  worthy  and  adequate  Home  of  its 
Institution.  The  domestic  life  of  both  Greek 
and  Eoman  sank  out  of  sight  in  their  political 
life;  no  wonder  that  the  Home  as  such,  the 
Home  of  all  Homes,  was  relatively  small  and 
neglected  if  we  compare  it  with  the  vast  and 
highly  finished  Public  Buildings  of  those  peoples. 
In  the  medieval  time  the  Family  was  put  into  the 
background  by  the  religious  life,  since  the  holy 
men,  the  priests  and  monks,  had  to  be  celibates. 
No  original  domestic  Architecture  could  arise 
while  its  Institution  was  under  the  ban,  though 
castle  and  palace  and  town-hall  might  imitate 
the  Gothic  and  Romanesque.  In  all  Roman ie 
building  the  ecclesiastical  type  dominated.  But 
with  the  Renascence  the  great  Famihes,  partic- 
ularly in  the  Italian  cities,  have  risen  not  only  to 
the  point  of  strong  self-asserti»n,  but  of  actual 
supremacy.  In  fact  the  Italian  States  of  this 
period  seem  to  be  split  up  into  Families  as  their 
ultimate  units  or  atoms,  which  fight  one  another 
and  also  the  Church,  and  even  the  State.  With 
such  energy  does  the  newly  developed  Institu- 
tion, the  Family,  assert  itself  against  other 
pre-existent  Institutions,  and  it  begins  to  build 
its  own  Home  in  accord  with  its  new-boru  Spirit. 
Then  this   institutional    Home   of    the  Family 


THE  BENASGENGE.  521 

will  penetrate  and  transform  other  institutional 
Homes,  secular  and  even  religious. 

II.  The  locality  for  starting  Eenascence  Archi- 
tecture is  Italy,  as  already  indicated.  There 
Roman  traditions  and  Roman  memories  pre- 
vailed, the  greatness  of  Rome  still  dominated  the 
Italian  mind,  like  a  compelling  dream.  Through- 
out the  land  were  many  ruins  of  that  ancient 
supremacy,  and  they  wrought  with  an  ever- 
present  power. 

In  fact,  the  city  of  Rome  may  be  deemed  the 
material  starting-point  of  the  Renascence.  Many 
of  its  old  edifices  were  still  standing  more  or  less 
complete,  and  served  as  copies  for  study  and 
imitation.  Architects  from  other  parts  of  Italy, 
such  as  Brunelleschi  and  Palladio,  flocked  to  Rome 
in  order  to  see  and  draw  her  imperial  structures 
and  to  appropriate  their  spirit.  At  that  time, 
during  the  fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries, 
much  remained  that  has  since  vanished.  They 
could  study  the  Baths,  Basilicas,  the  Colosseum, 
the  Pantheon.  The  forms  of  these  Public 
Buildings  they  wrought  over  into  a  transfigured 
Private  House,  which  thus  became  the  Palazzo 
(Italian  word  for  Palace,  which  however,  has  a 
different  suggestion  in  the  North). 

About  the  same  time  Greek  savants  were  flee- 
ing from  the  growing  power  of  the  Turk. 
Among  them  came  architects  bringing  the  old 
Roman   traditions    of    construction,    which    had 


522  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

descended  in  an  unbroken  line  at  Constantinople 
from  ancient  times.  At  last  this  city  was 
captured  by  the  Turks  (1453),  and  a  still  greater 
hegira  of  Greek  scholars  took  place  bringing 
along  manuscripts  and  learning  to  Italy.  Liter- 
ature revives,  old  Greek  and  old  Roman  to- 
gether; the  ancient  Classic  World  starts  up 
afresh  in  the  souls  of  men,  and  with  it  must  rise 
its  Architecture  as  its  outer  fairest  setting.  A 
manuscript  of  Vitruvius  was  discovered,  and  was 
translated  into  the  vernacular  in  1521.  This 
gave  a  theoretic  basis  for  the  study  of  the  Greek 
Orders,  not  in  their  Greek  purity  indeed,  but  in 
their  Eoman  transformation.  Thus  Architecture 
in  its  revival  has  an  erudite,  antiquarian  side, 
which  will  manifest  itself  even  in  its  most  spon- 
taneous products. 

Gothicism,  going  to  Italy  from  the  North, 
enjoys  a  partial  and  temporary  triumph.  It 
compromises  with  Classic  forms  on  Italian  soil 
more  and  more,  till  at  the  center,  Rome,  the 
Pointed  Arch  is  distinctly  condemned  and 
rejected.  Then  comes  the  return  to  the  semi- 
circular Arch  throughout  Italy,  with  the  speedy 
unfolding  and  adoption  of  Renascence  Archi- 
tecture even  for  Churches.  Still  the  lesson 
which  Gothicism  taught,  the  transformation  of 
the  exterior,  is  retained  and  applied  by  the 
Renascence,  in  contrast  with  the  neglected 
exterior  of  the  old  Christian  Basilica,  the  favor- 


THE  BENA8CENCE.  523 

ite  Koman  form.  Rome  may  thus  be  deemed 
the  axial  point  on  which  Architecture  turns  to 
the  Renascence. 

III.  Manifestly  Architecture  has  gotten  back 
to  Rome  spatially,  which  is  the  place  whence  it 
started  when  it  became  Christian  and  chose  the 
Basilica  for  open  worship.  What  a  journey  it 
has  had  toward  all  the  points  of  the  compass,  to 
the  East  and  West  in  the  Byzantine,  to  the 
North  and  South  in  the  Romanesque !  After 
more  than  a  thousand  years'  wandering  in  its 
Romanic  guise.  Architecture  has  returned  to  its 
starting  point,  Rome,  and  now  proposes  to  begin 
over  again,  setting  out  on  a  new  journey. 

But  this  new  journey  will  be  primarily  of  a 
different  kind ;  it  will  lead  back  to  antique  Rome 
which  must  somehow  be  recovered  and  restored 
to  the  world.  Such  a  return  will  be  spiritual, 
not  spatial ;  it  is  the  mind  alone  which  can  sweep 
backward  in  time  and  regain  those  ancient  treas- 
ures. The  scene  of  the  Renascence  is  mainly 
Italy  with  its  Roman  center;  it  will  indeed  spread 
to  other  countries,  but  chiefly  by  way  of  imitation ; 
imperial  Roman  Architecture,  modernized  by 
Italian  spirit,  will  again  be  scattered  through  the 
provinces  of  the  West,  now  mostly  independent 
States.  Thus  Rome  will  have  once  more  her 
centripetal  and  her  centrifugal  epochs  in  Archi- 
tecture. But  the  main  fact  of  it  is  that  Rome 
returns  upon  herself  and  brings    down   the  ages 


524  ABCHITECTUEE  -  E  UBOPEAN. 

her  antique  architectural  forms  to  be  wrought 
rover  into  a  new  style  of  edifices  reflecting  the 
new  spirit.  For  such  a  return  in  the  spirit  no 
great  space  is  required;  hence  the  area  of  the 
Renascence,  in  its  earlier  and  original  stages,  is 
Rome  with  its  Italian  annex. 

The  Architecture  of  the  Renascence  is,  then, 
largely  the  product  of  reflection,  being  based 
upon  the  study  of  old  monuments.  The  indi- 
vidual architect  had  to  be  a  scholar  as  well  as  an 
artist;  he  was  antiquary  first,  then  architect. 
He  built  the  Present  but  he  had  to  reach  it 
through  the  Past.  It  may  be  said  that  the 
Spirit  of  Architecture  in  the  Renascence  became 
reflective,  turning  back  upon  itself  in  order  to 
attain  fully  itself.  Thus  European  Architecture 
gets  aware  of  itself,  of  its  historic  development. 
The  architect  likewise  is  conscious  of  his  art,  and 
becomes  a  conscious  reproducer  of  its  past  forms. 
The  outcome  will  be  that  he  copies  rather  than 
creates ;  he  knows  so  much  old  Architecture  that 
he  seems  unable  to  produce  any  new.  The 
Nineteenth  Century,  which  still  belongs  chiefly 
to  the  Renascence,  will  furnish  many  examples 
of  this  result. 

One  other  consequence  of  the  previous  fact 
should  be  noticed.  The  architect  becomes 
strongly  individualized,  being  a  reflective,  self- 
conscious  personality,  through  the  present  char- 
acter of  his  art  in  which  he   participates.      His 


THE  BENASCENCE.  525 

njime  is  well  known,  his  life  is  written,  his  works 
are  listed  and  studied  for  his  individual  manner. 
No  such  prominence  was  ever  given  singly  to  the 
Romanic  architects ;  in  some  cases  their  names 
are  known,  though  little  more.  The  Eomanic 
churches  were  built  chiefly  by  guilds  or  societies 
of  masons  and  architects,  or  of  monks  and 
priests;  their  individuality  was  sunk  in  their 
order,  and  their  order  was  subject  to  the  one 
central  hierarchy.  In  the  Renascence,  however, 
Architecture  is  secular,  and  need  not  be  con- 
trolled by  the  religious  Norm ;  the  architect  is 
relatively  free,  even  in  employing  ancient  forms, 
to  choose,  to  combine,  to  alter.  Hence  what  he 
builds  is  his  own,  imaging  his  individual  char- 
acter rather  than  that  of  his  guild  or  order. 

Such,  then,  is  the  grand  turning-back  (reflec- 
tion) which  is  the  fundamental  trait  of  the 
Renascence,  and  belongs  both  to  the  individual 
Spirit  (the  Man)  and  to  the  universal  Spirit  (the 
Pampsychosis).  It  shows  that  the  deepest 
movement  of  the  Ages  is  psychical,  is  that  of  a 
self-returning  Ego  which  manifests  outwardly 
its  own  inner  process  in  the  appearances  of  Time. 
Of  these  appearances  Architecture  is  one,  and 
we  are  to  see  it  mirroring  in  its  profoundest 
sweep  just  this  process  of  the  All  (the  Pampsy- 
chosis) and  manifesting  the  same  in  its  cycle  of 
external  successive  stages.  The  supreme  educa- 
tional worth  of  the  Renascence  and  its  Archi- 


526  ABOHITECTURE-  EUROPEAN. 

tecture  is  that  it  compels  us  to  go  back  and  to 
pass  through  the  pampsychical  process  and  thus 
becomes  a  profound  spiritual  initiation. 

IV.  Another  result  of  this  re-born  world  is 
seen  in  the  changed  temper  of  men.  A  young 
hope  takes  possession  of  all  souls ;  there  is  a 
buoyancy  of  spirit  belonging  to  the  Renascence 
which  recalls  youth,  and  indicates  anew  birth  not 
of  one  man,  but  of  nations,  yea  of  a  whole  race. 
The  whole  world  was  to  be  wrought  over,  as 
we  saw  in  the  case  of  Eoman  Architecture, 
and  the  new  world  was  to  be  discovered,  which 
literally  happened  in  1492.  The  rising  sun  alone 
could  be  seen  and  every  day  was  a  festival. 
Sorrows  in  this  time  there  must  have  been ;  but 
the  overwhelming  tendency  was  the  joy  of  living, 
the  reconciliation  with  this  world  after  a  long 
estrangement. 

Very  different  were  the  feelings  of  men  in  the 
early  Christian  ages  during  the  gradual  decad- 
ence of  Rome.  A  world  was  going  to  pieces ; 
what  were  its  people  to  do?  An  inextinguish- 
able pain  haunted  the  man  everywhere;  not 
physical  pain,  we  may  call  it  institutional.  Yes, 
there  is  an  institutional  pain,  which  oppresses  the 
spirit  like  an  eternal  nightmare;  some  of  us 
older  people  may  recollect  its  persistent  demo- 
niac presence  during  the  dark  days  of  our  own 
Civil  War.  But  the  Renascence  was  not  a  de- 
clining but  a  rising  world;   not  old,  but  youthful 


fHM  BBNA8CENCE.  627 

again ;  properly  it  had  no  place  for  Weltschmerz 
(see  preceding  p.  403,  by  way  of  contrast). 

The  Architecture  of  the  Renascence  has  a  sim- 
ilar character  of  joy,  of  buoyancy,  of  reconcilia- 
tion with  this  world  after  a  millennial  penance  in 
order  to  torture  ourselves  into  the  other  world  of 
bliss.  But  the  Renascence  speaks  out  of  its 
buildings,  saying:  That  other  world  of  bliss  you 
must  bring  down  into  the  Here  and  Now ;  the 
Eternal  is  not  the  Beyond  merely,  but  includes 
the  Earth.  Thus  the  Architecture  of  the  Renas- 
cence has  a  decided  strain  of  this-worldliness  in 
contrast  to  the  other-worldliness  of  the  Romanic ; 
not  only  secular  buildings  gave  forth  such  a  note, 
but  also  churches  erected  in  the  new  style 
showed  the  same  tendency,  which  was  particu- 
larly seen  in  the  excessive  decorations  appealing 
purely  to  the  senses.  The  Jesuits  led  in  this 
kind  of  ecclesiastical  Architecture,  and  doubtless 
revealed  therein  something  of  their  own  charac- 
ter and  purposes.  The  flowers  of  all  culture 
they  gathered  to  decorate  and  to  conceal  the 
stern  hand  of  absolute  authority,  both  religious 
and  political,  seizing  the  new  freedom  by  the 
throat.  (See  especially  the  decorations  of  the 
church  of  Gesu  at  Rome.) 

There  is  no  denying  that  this  return  to  the 
Classic  World  has  its  strongly  negative  side. 
Italian  life  became  deeply  tainted  with  the  vices 
of   later  antiquity ;  the  return   to    Heathendom 


i/ 


528  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EVBOPEAN. 

heathenized  the  land.  Men  began  to  lead  the 
'Double  Life,  the  one  of  outer  conformity  to  the 
established  order  in  Church  and  State,  the  other 
of  inner  skepticism  and  negation.  The  Archi- 
tecture of  the  Renascence  will  show  this  very 
dualism  particularly  in  the  Rococo,  which  may 
be  termed  immoral  if  not  anarchic  construction . 
The  malady  penetrated  all  the  Latin  nations 
which  since  then  have  been  in  a  slow  decadence, 
on  an  undulating  line  of  ups  and  downs,  not 
unlike  ancient  Rome  herself. 

V.  The  period  of  the  Renascence  starts  in  full 
swing  in  the  early  part  of  the  Fifteenth  Century. 
Somewhere  about  1420  the  Florentine  architects 
are  found  studying  the  antique  and  consciously 
reproducing  its  forms.  A  great  genius  now  ap- 
pears dlled  with  the  new  spirit,  who  goes  back 
to  the  old  world  and  masters  its  forms  and 
employs  them  for  his  modern  purpose.  Brunel- 
leschi's  first  problem  was  to  erect  the  Dome  on 
the  Cathedral  of  Florence.  He  went  to  Rome, 
studied  the  Pantheon,  and  then  did  the  wOrk, 
which,  however,  had  been  in  substance  done 
long  before  in  St.  Sophia's.  Thus  the  domical 
construction  peculiar  to  the  Renascence  starts  on 
its  far-extended  career,  which  has  by  no  means 
yet  concluded 

But  a  more  deeply  significant  act  is  the  build- 
ing of  the  Palazzo  Riccardi  by  Brunelleschi  and 
Michelozzi  (1430).     This  may  well  be  deemed 


THE  RENASCENCE.  629 

the  birth  of  the  Italian  Palazzo,  the  typical 
structure  of  the  Renascence.  It  was  an  architec- 
tural deed  striking  the  deepest  chord  in  the 
Spirit  of  the  Age,  and  marvelous  was  the  thrill 
in  response.  All  Florence  broke  out  into  build- 
ing Palazzos;  every  Family  that  could  afford 
it  must  have  a  Palazzo.  Thence  the  fever  sped 
to  Venice,  to  Rome,  and  to  all  Italy ;  nor  was  it 
very  long  till  it  had  crossed  the  Alps  in  its  cen- 
trifugal sweep. 

Why  was  Florence  chosen  instead  of  Rome 
for  the  beginning  of  the  new  movement?  The 
question  is  suggestive  in  more  ways  than  one. 
Rome  had  the  examples  in  the  old  structures,  to 
which  the  architects  from  every  part  of  Italy 
had  to  come  for  study.  But  her  living  institu- 
tional world,  the  Papacy,  was  not  favorable. 
Florence  had  the  nevv  spirit  institutionalized,  and 
there  it  began  to  build  its  Home.  Florence  was 
composed  of  great  Families  which  had  risen  to 
vast  wealth  through  their  ability  and  energy. 
These  Families  controlled  largely  the  finances  of 
Europe,  as  well  as  much  of  its  commerce  The 
Family  had  exploited  itself  in  Florence  as  never 
before  in  history.  To  be  sure  the  same  tendency 
was  general  in  Italy  and  also  in  advanced 
Europe.  But  the  Florentine  Family  was  the 
active  leader,  the  typs,  the  norm  which  becomes 
creative.  It  was  the  new-born  Institution,  ex- 
istent of  old  but  suppressed  or  subordinate ;  now 

34 


580  ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

it  rises  to  the  top  of  the  institutional  world 
and  asserts  itself  with  an  energy  unknown  here- 
tofore ;  particularly  in  Florence  is  such  a  mani- 
festation. Of  course  the  Family  does  not  here 
mean  simply  the  man  and  wife  with  their  chil- 
dren ;  it  means  all  those  of  the  same  name  and 
blood  who  co-operate  politically,  socially  and 
commercially  under  the  head  of  the  Family  (or 
House  it  is  often  called).  Not  a  single  but  an 
associated  Family  it  is,  a  kind  of  Family  com- 
munity. This  is  what  builds  its  new  home  in  the 
Palazzo,  which  has  an  inner  court  where  the 
single  Families  may  be  supposed  to  gather,  as  is 
still  seen  in  the  primitive  House  Community  of 
Aryan  peoples.  Likewise  the  semi-circular  Arch 
is  chosen,  having  a  common  center  for  all  its 
separate  voussoirs ;  but  now  it  is  not  Eome  with 
its  political  center  for  the  whole  world ;  on  the 
contrary  each  Family  has  its  own  distinct  center 
and  seizes  upon  the  Roman  semi-circular  Arch 
to  express  itself  architecturally.  In  like  manner 
each  European  State  had  become  self -centered  at 
the  time  of  the  Renascence,  having  for  the  most 
part  broken  loose  from  its  dependence  on  the 
Empire  and  the  Papacy ;  each  State  will  no  longer 
be  merely  a  voussoir  of  an  imperial  or  papal 
World-arch,  but  insists  upon  being  itself  a  total 
Arch  with  its  own  center.  So  it  nappens  that 
the  old  Roman  semi-circular  Arch  becomes  again 


THE  BENASCENCE.  531 

universal,  but  in  a  new  sense  which  is  that  of  the 
Eenascence . 

In  some  such  manner  we  are  to  grasp  the  in- 
stitutional principle  of  the  movement  which  is 
now  to  build  its  dwelling-place.  The  strong  self- 
assertion  of  the  Florentine  Family  is  indicated  in 
the  facade  of  its  early  Palazzos  (Riccardi,  Pitti), 
with  their  projecting  and  defiant  blocks  of  stone 
sometimes  left  in  the  rough,  particularly  on  the 
outside  of  the  lower  story.  This  treatment, 
called  rustica,  suggests  that  the  Palazzo  is  a 
castle  for  defense  transferred  to  the  streets  of  a 
city.  The  Home  of  the  Family  must  also  be  a 
fortress  at  that  time  and  place.  The  second 
story  was  often  much  gentler  in  aspect,  and  the 
upper  story  could  relax  into  courtesy  and  even 
smile  upon  the  outsider  (Palazzo  Guadagni). 
But  the  lower  story  is  a  challenge,  and  we  can- 
not look  upon  the  heavy  rustica  of  the  early 
Florentine  Palazzo  without  thinking  of  the  street 
brawls  of  Guelph  and  Ghibelin.  (See  Mach- 
iavelli's  History  of  Florence  ^ass^m . ) 

The  Architecture  of  the  Renascence  passed  to 
Venice  not  long  after  its  flowering  at  Florence, 
and  there .  produced  a  new  and  delightful  varia- 
tion. The  Venetian  Palazzo  lies  on  the  sea,  it 
has  a  natural  protection  and  will  need  no  savage 
rustica  for  looking  defiance  at  the  foe.  It  is 
distinctively  an  outside  Architecture,  made  to  be 
seen  from  the  gondola  gliding  on  the  lagoon  in 


532  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

front.  The  facade,  therefore,  is  specially  devel- 
oped, being  open,  full  of  windows,  decorated 
with  colored  marbles;  the  lower  story  is  not 
closed  and  forbidding,  but  rather  invites  entrance 
sending  a  friendly  salute  from  its  broad  front 
steps  leading  down  to  the  water's  edge. 

The  Roman  Palazzo  was  the  last  to  develop, 
and  it  showed  distinctly  that  the  primal  efflores- 
cence of  the  new  style  was  already  vanishing. 
Bramante  was  its  first  great  architect.  There  is 
something  cold,  formal,  technical  in  this  style, 
of  which  the  Palazzo  Farnese  is  usually  deemed 
the  master-piece.  It  lacks  the  spontaneity  of  its 
Florentine  and  Venetian  sisters.  The  Spirit  of 
the  Eenascence  is  already  lapsing  into  formalism 
which  is  indeed  the  institutional  environment  of 
Eom6  in  this  period  with  its  stiff  patriciate  in 
secular  life  and  the  ceremonious  papacy  in  re- 
ligious life.  A  kind  of  hollow  magnificence  per- 
vades these  Roman  Palazzos,  whatever  be  their 
excellence  in  other  respects.  Too  much  Vitru- 
vius,  too  much  old  Rome,  too  much  authority 
concentrated  just  here  —  the  past  is  too  over- 
whelming for  the  modern  idea  to  rise  and  to 
develop  freely.  The  architect  should  go  to 
Rome,  as  did  Brunelleschi  and  many  others,  but 
he  should  get  out  of  it  again  and  go  home  to  his 
own  institutional  life,  which  must  furnish  the 
soul  for  his  building. 

The  Renascence  built  a  vast  cathedral  at  Rome, 


THE  BENASCENCE.  633 

St.  Peter's,  of  which  we  have  already  spoken  a 
number  of*  times.  It  is  undoubtedly  a  great 
landmark  in  Architecture,  chiefly  on  account  of 
its  size.  Then  its  Dome  is  the  most  impressive 
©f  all  Domes  in  the  world,  and  challenges  to  im- 
itation. It  commands  from  on  high,  and  thus 
manifests  itself  as  the  most  strikinor  architectural 
symbol  of  authority,  be  it  religious  or  secular, 
which  the  world  has  yet  seen.  On  the  whole, 
however,  this  dome  dualizes  the  Church,  and 
makes  even  St.  Peter's  show  the  schism  which 
was  already  taking  place  during  its  construction. 
The  Renascence  was  a  return  to  Nature,  to  the 
classic  and  secular  world ;  how  can  such  an  idea 
be  made  to  fit  a  church?  By  clapping  on  top  of 
it  a  Heaven-aspiring  Dome?  Such  a  solution 
remains  dualistic  for  a  religious  structure  at  least. 
The  up-bearing  and  down -bearing  tendencies, 
the  horizontal  and  the  vertical,  but  particularly 
the  rectilineal  and  the  curvilineal  here  present  a 
contradiction  which  will  later  develop  into  the 
Eococo. 

But  the  most  significant  point  about  the 
Palazzo  is  that  it  has  several  storys.  The  houses 
of  Pompeii  are  of  one  story,  and  we  must  sup- 
pose that  this  was  the  general  case  in  ancient 
Greece  and  Kome,  even  if  the  large  cities  had 
high  buildings  similar  to  our  lodging  houses  or 
flats.  One  story  gets  on  top  of  another,  and 
climbs   upward  like  the  tower   of  the  Romanic 


534  ARGHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

church.  The  once  humble  dwelling-house  has 
^so  become  aspiring.  But  great  is  the  burden 
of  the  lower  story,  having  to  support  its  own 
inner  structure  and  outer  ornament,  as  well  as 
the  new  repetitions  above  itself;  we  may 
almost  hear  it  calling  for  help  at  the  fifth  or 
sixth  story.  Still  this  development  upward  is 
not  going  to  stop,  and  will  demand  an  entirely 
new  constructive  principle  which  will  run  the 
structure  up  to  twenty -five  story  s  and  more, 
around  a  kind  of  covered  court  or  hall.  Some 
such  prophecy  of  the  American  High  Building 
we  may  read  in  the  struggles  and  strivings  of  the 
Italian  Palazzo  of  the  Kenascence. 

At  this  point,  then,  the  Palazzo,  including  the 
Renascence,  has  come  upon  its  constructive  limit, 
and  has  to  stop.  If  it  builds  more  stories  with 
the  given  material  of  stone  or  brick,  the  whole 
structure  is  in  danger  of  crushing  together,  of 
destroying  itself.  The  wall  now  refuses  its 
burden,  having  borne  it  quietly  since  the  begin- 
ning of  Architecture  in  ancient  Egypt.  The 
wall,  the  enclosing  and  also  the  upbearing  prin- 
ciple, declares  that  its  old  material  can  no  longer 
sustain  the  superincumbent  weight  imposed  upon 
it  by  the  new  spirit  ever  aspiring  and  limit-trans- 
cending. The  wall  can  no  longer  enclose  the 
institutional  Home  of  the  coming  order ;  the  old 
wall,  after  long  and  faithful  service,  insists  that 


TEE  RENASCENCE.  586 

it  too  must  be  renewed  in  this  grand  renewal  of 
the  old  world  in  the  new. 

VI.  Such  is  a  brief  outline  of  the  Renascence 
in  its  general  architectural  aspect  as  it  appeared 
and  developed  in  Italy,  starting  early  in  the 
fifteenth  century.  Thence  it  passed  rapidly  to 
other  countries  of  Europe  whither  we  shall  not 
attempt  to  follow  it,  here  simply  indicating  that 
this  was  another  centrifugal  movement  of  Archi- 
tecture from  Rome  and  Italy  out  to  the  rest  of 
the  world.  Omitting  thus  its  spatial  develop- 
ment and  dispersion,  we  shall  concentrate  upon 
its  unfolding  in  time,  as  far  as  this  has  yet  taken 
place,  for  we  are  hardly  yet  out  of  the  Renas- 
cence at  the  opening  of  the  Twentieth  Century. 

A.  The  First  Period.  —  This  is  the  origina- 
tive time  of  the  Renascence  and  has  been  set 
forth  in  the  preceding  account.  Its  supreme 
architectural  act  is  the  construction  of  the  Italian 
Palazzo  with  its  three  leading  styles  which  are 
usually  designated  after  the  cities  where  they 
arose,  as  Florentine,  Venetian,  Roman.  The 
Period  may  be  placed  in  a  general  way  between 
1420  and  1580,  though  these  bounds  are  by  no 
means  rigid. 

It  begins  with  the  Palazzo  of  the  Family,  but 
soon  embraces  the  institutional  homes  of  all 
kinds  of  secular  life,  commercial  and  political, 
as  well  as  of  culture,  such  as  libraries  and  art 
galleries.     This  Architecture  has  not  merely  an 


536  AUCniTECTURE  —  EUBOPEAN. 

outer  and  inner,  but  an  outer,  middle  and  inner 
(the  court).  All  these  parts  must  have  their 
suitable  decoration,  which  fact  makes  the  deco- 
rative element  very  pronounced  in  the  Renas- 
cence, with  ever-present  temptation  of  breaking 
away  from  construction.  This  is  what  happens 
next. 

B.  Rococo.  —  The  second  period  of  the  Archi- 
tecture of  the  Renascence  shows  a  great  breach 
within  itself,  which  quite  reaches  the  point  of 
self -negation.  The  classic  forms  are  indeed 
retained,  but  are  changed  in  such  a  way  that 
their  constructive  significance  is  ignored  or  even 
denied.  When  the  Greek  column,  for  instance, 
is  made  of  drums  of  projecting  rustica,  which 
proclaims  resistance  or  defiance,  its  original 
meaning  of  supporting  the  architrave  above  is 
quite  obscured,  if  not  lost.  (See  the  columns  of 
many  an  American  Post  Office  Building.) 

The  primal  characteristic  of  the  Rococo  is  to 
turn  the  antique  straight  line  into  a  curved  line. 
It  is  well  known  that  the  Classic  is  essentially  a 
rectilineal  Architecture,  particularly  the  Greek, 
and  the  Renascence  is  chiefly  a  revival  of  the 
Classic.  But  in  this  second  period  the  reaction 
has  set  in,  and  the  architectural  act  of  the 
Rococo  is  to  break  up  this  rectilineal  element, 
introducing  into  it,  whenever  possible,  all  sorts 
of  roun-d  shapes,  such  as  shells,  scrolls,  flowers, 
fruits,  festoons,  thus  going  back  to  Nature  and 


THE  BENA8CENCE.  537 

picking  up  any  round  object  for  its  purpose, 
y/e  may  see  in  it  a  protest  against  the  Classic 
formalism  of  the  Palazzo,  especially  in  the 
latter' s  stiff  pedantic  manifestation  at  Rome. 

Michel  Angelo  is  usually  declared  to  be  the 
father  of  the  Eococo.  First  of  all  he  was  a 
genius,  colossal  and  barrier-bursting,  and  while 
following  the  Classic  tendency  of  his  age,  he 
could  not  quietly  rest  in  its  shackles  or  even  in 
its  law.  Then  he  was  a  Florentine,  and  partook 
strongly  of  the  innovating  spirit  of  his  native 
city.  Then  he  was  a  Florentine  genius  at  Rome 
with  its  central  authority  and  its  overpowering 
mass  of  ancient  tradition.  The  giant  shook  him- 
self  mightily  in  his  fetters,  sometimes  quite  over- 
come by  them,  as  in  his  two  Roman  Palaces 
upon  Capitol  Hill,  then  on  the  other  hand  over- 
coming them  as  in  the  Dome  of  St.  Peter's.  He 
was  also  a  sculptor  and  painter,  and  daringly 
introduced  into  Architecture  the  round  lines  of 
the  sculpturesque  and  picturesque. 

But  even  the  genius  can  only  bring  to  light 
what  lies  in  the  innermost  nature  of  thinofs. 
Rococo  had  to  appear  when  the  Renascence 
passed  from  the  Palazzo  to  the  Church.  The 
entire  movement  of  the  Romanic  (or  Christian) 
Architecture  is  a  development  out  of  the  Heathen 
forms  of  building,  while  the  Renascence  is 
largely  a  return  to  them  and  re-adoption  of  them. 
The  two  streams  run  exactly  opposite,   and  it  is 


538  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

no  wonder  that  there  should  be  a  great  break-up 
when  they  met,  with  splashing,  twisting,  and 
curling  of  the  waters,  which  shapes  resemble 
those  of  the  Kococo.  Into  the  horizontalism  -of 
the  Classic  surges  the  vertical  tendency  of  the 
Romanic;  the  unrest  of  the  Church  is  shown  by 
the  struggle  between  the  secular  and  the  religious, 
or  rather  between  this-worldliness  and  other- 
worldliness.  The  straight  lines  of  the  ancient 
pediments  are  bent,  twisted,  broken ;  around  the 
entrances,  the  doors  and  windows,  dash  these 
unsteady  forms  of  stone.  We  have  already 
spoken  of  the  dualism  between  the  Dome  of  St. 
Peter's  and  the  body  of  the  Church.  Let  this 
dualism  develop;  let  the  curves  of  the  Dome 
come-  down  and  break  into  the  horizontal  lines  of 
the  fagade,  twisting  them  into  many  convolu- 
tions and  contortions,  and  we  may  see  the  Rococo 
springing  out  of  the  chief  Church  of  Christen- 
dom. 

For  two  hundred  years  and  more  it  lasted, 
from  the  close  of  the  sixteenth  to  the  close  of 
the  eighteenth  century,  showing  the  intensity  of 
the  struggle.  The  directness  of  the  rectilineal 
both  in  spirit  and  in  outer  form  was  disliked  and 
assailed.  The  Rococo  was  an  expression  of  the 
age — the  age  of  Italian  diplomacy,  of  Louis 
XIV,  and  especially  of  the  Jesuits,  who  partic- 
ularly developed  Rococo  Architecture  in  its  ex- 
treme manifestation.     It  was  likewise  the  age  of 


THE  BENASCENGE,  539 

the  conflict  between  tne  Latin  and  Teutonic 
spirit,  between  Catholicism  and  Protestantism, 
between  political  freedom  (Dutch  Republic)  and 
absolutism  (Spain  and  France),  between  an  out- 
going and  incoming  order.  Rococo  thus  has  its 
importance  as  an  architectural  expression  of  the 
age,  of  whose  dominating  Spirit  it  built  the  insti- 
tutionalHorae,  both  religious  and  secular.  Rococo 
passed  over  into  the  Palazzo  too,  where,  however, 
it  does  not  mean  much,  and  hardly  belongs,  being 
mostly  an  external  imitation  of  something  which 
has  its  true  home  in  the  Church.  . 

C.  The  Nineteenth  Century.  —  This  has 
the  character  of  the  Renascence  still  through 
its  being  a  return  to  the  architectural  forms  of 
antecedent  times.  The  fundamental  note  of  the 
Nineteenth  Century  is  evolution,  which  means  a 
going-back  to  the  past  and  an  unfolding  of  its 
shapes  down  the  ages.  It  is  from  this  point  of 
view  an  intensified  Renascence,  the  Renascence 
of  the  Renascence,  yet  with  small  originality  in 
Architecture.  It  returns  to  the  Middle  Ages 
and  reproduces  the  old  Basilica,  the  Romanesque, 
and  particularly  the  Gothic  in  its  church-build- 
ing, quite  abandoning  Rococo  in  the  religious 
edifice.  Thus  it  acknowledges  the  Romanic  as 
the  true  Architecture  for  its  worship.  On  the 
other  hand  the  secular  world  encroaches  upon  the 
religious  structure,  employing  Romanic  forms  in 
town-halls,  court-houses,  jails,  railroad  stations. 


540  ABGHITECTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

and  even  a  Gothic  brewery  has  been  seen,  ex- 
pressive of  a  stalwart  Teutonism  which  converts 
the  Cologne  Cathedral  into  the  home  of  Gam- 
brinus. 

Still  greater  was  the  fresh  revival  of  the 
Classic.  The  first  Renascence  was  centered  in 
the  ruins  of  Rome,  whose  construction  the 
Italian  architects  copied  and  transformed.  But 
the  second  Renascence  of  the  Nineteenth  Century 
gets  back  to  Greece  and  is  centered  in  the  ruins 
of  Athens,  particularly  of  the  Acropolis.  Thus 
it  reaches  beyond  Rome  to  the  first  sources  of 
Classic  forms,  and  reproduces  them  particularly 
at  Berlin  (Schinkel)  and  in  Bavaria  (Leo  von 
Klenze).  The  fountain  of  this  second  Renas- 
cence lay  chiefly  in  a  book,  Stuart  and  Revett's 
drawings  of  the  Antiquities  of  Athens,  which 
started  all  Western  Europe  and  even  America 
to  rebuilding  Greek  Architecture.  We  must  not 
forget  that  the  first  Renascence  also  had  a  strong 
prompter  in  a  book,  ancient  Vitruvius. 

Thus  the  second  Renascence  has  a  studied, 
learned,  antiquarian  character  like  the  first;  it  is 
reflective,  yea,  a  reflection  of  a  reflection.  It 
labors  under  one  great  drawback,  the  want  of 
spontaneity.  Its  chief  home  was  in  philosophic 
Germany  at  a  time  when  she  was  the  creative 
philosopher  of  Europe.  It  accompanies  also  the 
deeper  study  of  the  Greek  language,  culminating 
in  the  rise  of  Comparative  Philology.     Rococo, 


THE  RENASCENCE.  541 

by  its  revolutionary  excesses  drove  men  back  to 
the  pure  lines  and  to  the  simple  expression  of 
the  law  in  Greek  Architecture. 

The  Nineteenth  Century,  as  already  noted, 
produced  no  commanding  architectural  genius, 
like  Goethe  in  poetry,  Beethoven  in  music,  Hegel 
in  philosophy,  and  Darwin. in  science.  On  the 
contrary  it  dissolves  into  many  talented  builders, 
who  could  restore  the  Architectures  of  the  past 
by  conscious  and  trained  reflection,  adding,  of 
course,  numerous  ingenious  devices  and  applica- 
tions of  their  own.  Still  it  does  a  great  positive 
service :  it  re-asserts  the  objective  law  of  con- 
struction against  the  skeptical,  negative  Rococo, 
which  really  denies  the  truth  of  Architecture, 
making  it  largely  a  subjective  caprice,  particu- 
larly in  the  matter  of  decoration. 

Very  diversified  is  the  architectural  stream  of 
the  Nineteenth  Century  with  its  currents,  cross 
currents  and  counter  currents.  It  rebuilds  the 
old  Greek  temple ;  it  goes  back  to  the  Romanic 
and  constructs  anew  its  manifold  forms ;  it  re- 
turns to  the  Palazzo  of  the  Renascence  which 
was  itself  a  return.  Many  new  combinations  it 
makes  of  these  various  old  styles,  seemingly  in 
search  of  a  new  style.  Perhaps  the  typical 
architectural  act  of  the  century  in  Europe  was 
that  Maximilian  street  in  Munich  which  the  King 
of  Bavaria  planned  for  the  purpose  of  creating 
a  new  Architecture  by  a  skillful  combination  of 


542  ABCHITEGTUBE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

ancient,  medieval^  and  modern  elements.  It 
failed  of  course ;  learned  eclecticism  is  not  crea- 
tion. Thus  the  Nineteenth  Century  kept  going 
back  to  the  sources  of  its  previous  constructive 
forms,  seeking  to  overtake  the  innermost  creative 
act  of  Architecture.  But  it  could  not  seize  upon 
the  subtle  genetic  work  of  the  Spirit  in  that  way. 
It  would  seem  that  European  Architecture  hai 
for  the  present  exhausted  itself  creatively,  hav- 
ing completed  its  vast  cycle  of  construction,  the 
Classic,  the  Eomanic  and  the  Eenascence,  lasting 
some  twenty-five  centuries. 


SUMMABT.  543 


IRetroepect. 

In  looking  back  through  European  Architec- 
ture we  observe  the  rise,  bloom,  and  decline  of 
many  forms,  styles,  periods.  We  have  con- 
nected these  changes  with  the  corresponding 
changes  in  the  Social  Institutions  of  Man,  for 
which  Architecture  builds  the  abode. 

At  the  same  time  we  are  also  to  see  that  Archi- 
tecture has  its  own  inner  constructive  rise,  bloom, 
and  decline.  It  has  its  own  process  manifesting 
itself  in  its  own  structural  forms.  It  develops 
and  decays  through  itself. 

Still  the  development  and  decay  of  Architec- 
ture accompany  and  mirror  the  development  and 
decay  of  Institutions.  A  common  Spirit  is  work- 
ing in  both,  bringing  them  forth  and  dismissing 
them  when  they  have  reached  their  limit,  and 
their  task  is  done. 

And  now  we  wish  to  take  a  brief  glance  over 
the  road  we  have  traveled,  emphasizing  the 
purely  constructive  movement.  First  of  all,  let 
us  grasp  the  architectural  inheritance  of  Europe 
in  its  germ.  It  comes  from  Egypt  which  devel- 
oped the  Enclosure  with  wall  and  covermg,  and 
also  developed  the  Column  which  upheld  this 
covering,  and  thus  produced  a  larger  enclosed 


544 


ABCHITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAN. 


space  for  the  temple.  The  Egyptian  is  primarily 
^n  interior  Architecture  ;  it  was  not  interiorized 
like  the  Christian,  but  developed  inside  at  first, 
really  within  the  cave,  as  we  may  see  at  Beni- 
Hassan. 


In  order  to  bring  this  matter  distinctly  before 
the  mind  of  the  student,  a  cut  is  given  showing 
the  ground-plan  of  the  Egyptian  temple  of 
Chensu  which  is  connected  with  the  site  of 
Karnak.     Tne   black   dots  show  the  place  and 


SUMMARY. 


545 


order  of  the  columns  which  are  inside  the  wall, 
and  form  ahnost  an  inner  Peristyle.  The  white 
space  in  the  front  section  is  open  to  the  sky,  as  was 
often  the  case  in  the  Greek  temple  (hypaethral). 


#     0     #     ©     ^ 


The  next  step  in  the  movement  is  to   throw 
one  set  of  these  colonnades  outside  the  wall  and 

35 


546 


AnOHtTECTUBE  —  EUTtOPEAK. 


to  make  it  completely  self -returning.  Thus  we 
have  the  Greek  Peristyle  surrounding  the  wall 
which  in  this  position  with  its  enclosure  is  called 
the  Cella.  The  latter  has  also  its  internal  colon- 
nades, though  the  columns  are  of  smaller  size. 
Now  we  behold  the  two  basic  forms  of  the  Greek 
temple,  Peristyle  and  Cella.  This  we  have 
already  designated  as  the  primordial  act  of  Euro- 
pean Architecture  (see  preceding  p.  145).  In 
the  second  cut  which  is  that  of  the  ground-plan 
of  the  Parthenon,  we  observe  the  change  from 
the  Egyptian  temple,  yet  also  the  similarity  to 
the  same. 

The  interaction  of  these  two  elements,  the  en- 
closing wall  and  the  colonnade,  will  give  the  fun- 
damental forms  through  which  the  Architecture  of 


M^h filM 

i 


Europe  unfolds  from  beginning  to  end.  If  the 
Greek  exteriorized  the  colonnade,  t^e  Eomanic  or 
Christian  interiorizes  it,  putting  it  back  inside  the 


SUMMARY. 


547 


wall  and  overroofing  the  whole.  The  third  cut 
shows  the  old  Basilica  of  St.  Paul's  near  Rome. 
The  fourth  cut  presents  the  outline  of  an 
Italian  Palazzo  (Farnese,  at  Rome),  the  last 
typical  form  in  the  development  of  European 
Architecture.     Again  the   colonnade  is  thrown 


outside  the  walls,  yet  remains  inside  the  court 
and  forms  there  a  Peristyle,  which  ,we  may  call 
both  interior  and  exterior.  There  may  be  and 
usually  are  in  some  form  interior  columns  inside 
the  walls,  and  exterior  columns  in  the  fagade. 
Thus  we  see  that  the  Palazzo  of  the  Renascence 
has  an  interior  and  an  exterior  Architecture,  and 
also  the  two  in  a  manner  combined,  the  whole 
being  a  kind  of  summary  of  the  Architecture  of 


548  AncniTECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAK. 

Europe  as  far  as  the  movement  of  the  ground- 
plan  is  concerned. 

Such  is  the  interplay  between  column  and  wall 
from  the  Greek  Temple  to  the  Italian  Palazzo, 
embracing  Europe's  main  edifices.  We  may 
consider  the  wall  as  the  stationary  and  the  col- 
umn as  the  movable  principle ;  it  is  the  column 
which  seems  to  pass  outside,  then  inside,  then 
both  outside  and  inside  the  wall.  The  reason  is 
that  the  column  has  simply  the  one  duty,  the 
up-bearing,  and  goes  where  it  is  wanted  without 
a  clog ;  while  the  wall  has  both  an  up-bearing 
and  enclosing  function  together,  and  cannot 
move  about  so  easily.  Moreover  the  column  is 
derived  from  the  wall,  which  fact  we  noted  in 
ancient  Egypt.  Relatively  the  wall  seems  fixed 
and  the  column  capable  of  marching ;  especially 
the  Greek  column  has  this  element  of  life  and 
movement,  when  seen  at  a  distance  in  its  peri- 
stylar  company. 

But  now  this  stationary  wall  which  has  stood 
substantially  the  same  through  all  European 
Architecture,  begins  to  show  signs  of  move- 
ment. But  its  movement  is  not  like  that  of  the 
column,  outward  and  inward,  on  the  earth,  but 
upward  and  downward  when  story  is  piled  on 
story  in  the  Renascence. 

Now  it  is  just  through  this  movement  that  the 
Renascence  proper  reaches  its  architectural 
limit.      The  wall  with  its  manifold  duties  and  its 


SUMMAliY.  549 

ordinary  material  cannot  rise  more  than  a  few 
storys,  when  it  must  stop  or  tumble  down, 
stricken  by  the  fateful  blow.  Here  then  the 
Architecture  of  the  Renascence  ends,  overcome 
by  that  secret  foe  of  all  Architecture,  terrestrial 
gravitation,  against  whose  power  it  has  fortified 
so  many  structures  with  bulwarks.  We  saw  the 
same  tragic  end  of  the  Greek  Orders  as  they 
continued  to  widen  the  intercolumniation  and 
thus  weaken  the  Architrave.  The  Roman  Arch, 
which  **  never  sleeps  "  continued  also  to  widen 
and  thrust  outward,  ever  threatening  its  but- 
tress. And  the  Pointed  Arch  we  have  seen  de- 
stroying itself  as  space- enclosing.  Finally  the 
Renascence  adds  its  last  story  and  comes  to  an 
end.  Such  we  may  call  the  tragedies  of  Archi- 
tecture. 

We  see  a  power  which  drives  every  architec- 
tural style  upon  its  limit,  after  begetting  it  and 
nourishing  it  for  a  time.  Spirit,  ever  moving 
forward,  gets  to  demanding  of  a  constructive 
principle  more  than  it  can  fulfill ;  it  is  required  to 
bear  up  more  and  more  till  the  down-bearing 
gravity  of  the  earth  overpowers  it  and  crushes  it 
to  the  dust.  Europe  receives  from  the  Orient 
and  preserves  the  enclosing  principle ;  she  takes 
from  the  same  source  the  up-bearing  principle, 
but  varies  it  much  in  her  different  styles  and 
periods,  and  at  last  forces  each  form  of  it  into 


550  ABGHITEGTUBE  —  EVBOPEAN. 

self -negation.     One    may    well    see     that    this 
tallies  with  her  institutional  development. 

But  now  the  enclosing  principle,  so  long  the 
fixed,  the  accepted,  the  established,  must  be 
taken  up  and  transformed.  The  question  is 
asked :  What  is  the  ground  for  this  transmitted 
enclosure?  Can  it  not  be  made  to  perform 
better  service?  Is  there  any  necessity  in  reason 
for  its  unchangeable  European  character?  Thus 
we  are  thrown  back  of  Europe,  into  the  Orient, 
specially  into  Egypt,  to  examine  anew  the 
origination  of  the  wall,  the  enclosing  prin- 
ciple, which  must  now  be  made  over,  re-origi- 
nated, endowed  with  a  new  creative  principle. 
At  this  point,  then,  the  wall  after  its  long 
stability,  is  whelmed  into  the  supreme  archi- 
tectural process  of  the  Ages,  and  calls  forth  not 
simply  another  variation  of  Style  or  Period,  but 
a  new  Type,  which  may  well  be  named  the  Occi- 
dental. 


CHAPTER  THIRD. 

The  Occidental  Type. 

The  third  Type  in  the  total  movement  of 
Architecture  has  made  its  first  appearance  in  the 
American  High  Building,  developing  out  of,  yet 
in  a  process  with,  the  two  antecedent  Types, 
Oriental  and  European.  Spatially  Architecture 
may  now  be  seen  in  the  act  of  girdling  the  Earth 
in  the  Northern  Hemisphere,  where  it  is  chiefly 
confined  to  the  North-Temperate  Zone.  For 
the  development  of  a  Type  it  seems  to  take  an 
entire  grand  division  of  the  globe.  But  for  the 
development  of  Styles  and  Periods,  it  follows 
the  lesser  divisions,  still  clinging  to  localities  and 
their  nations.  Architecture  is  most  responsive 
to  the  institutions  of  a  country,  since  it  builds 
their   Home  which  must  reflect  their  character. 

(551) 


552  ABCHITEC  TUliE  —  E  UBOPEAN. 

It  will  be  noted  that  the  present  book  has 
gone  back  to  its  starting-point  (see  the  Intro- 
duction on  the  High  Building.)  The  result  of  a 
great  evolution  must  have  lain  as  a  germ  in  the 
beginning;  the  last  form  evolved  explains  the 
first;  the  High  Building  is  literally  an  explica- 
tion of  the  Egyptian  Pyramid.  The  two  stand 
as  the  beginning  and  the  end  up  to  date,  with 
Europe  in  between  having  no  High  Buildings 
strictly,  though  it  has  lofty  towers  and  domes. 
Europe  never  built  a  Pyramid  in  the  Egyptian 
sense,  never  could  erect  a  High  Building  in  the 
American  sense,  not  having  the  constructive 
method.  To  be  sure,  its  spirit  never  demanded 
such  a  structure  as  the  home  of  any  of  its  Insti- 
tutions. The  New  World  is  different  though 
evolved  from  the  Old ;  primarily  it  has  a  differ- 
ent State,  and  this  difference  must  at  last  mirror 
itself  in  Architecture. 

First,  in  the  matter  of  altitude  and  colossality 
the  Occidental  Type  is  a  return  to  the  Oriental. 
This  is,  however,  not  a  mere  relapse  or  rever- 
sion; it  takes  place  after  the  whole  European 
development,  which  it  retains  and  carries  along, 
thus  indicating  the  world's  cycle  of  Architec- 
ture. 

Even  more  suggestive  is  the  return  of  the 
High  Building  to  the  wall,  with  which  the  earlie&t 
construction  has  to  start.  The  Pyramid  is  an 
enclosure  which  is  almost  wholly  wall.     In  the 


THE  OCCIDENTAL  TYPE.  553 

Egyptian  Temple  this  wall  is  differentiated  from 
the  roof  and  the  supporting  columns  (see  pre- 
ceding pp.  64,  98,  120,  et  passim).  Egypt 
evolved  the  architectural  wall  as  space-enclosing 
with  the  cover  overhead.  In  general  Europe 
adopted  this  wall  and  kept  it  without  substantial 
change  from  the  old  Greek  Temple  to  the 
Palazzo  of  the  Renascence.  We  may  say  that 
the  Egyptian  wall  persists  through  all  the 
periods  of  European  Architecture. 

We  have  already  seen  how  the  Italian  Palazzo, 
pushing  upward  with  its  many-storied  aspiration 
(coming  from  the  Romanic  Tower),  runs  upon 
the  grand  limitation  of  the  wall  whose  construc- 
tive method  had  been  so  long  taken  for  granted 
by  Europe  without  much  questioning  (though  a 
little  can  be  traced  all  the  way  down  from  Hel- 
las). The  last  tragedy  of  European  Architec- 
ture is  that  of  the  Renascence,  in  which  we  may 
behold  the  Palazzo  falling  to  ruin  if  it  dares  trans- 
cend its  bound  and  embody  its  universal  spirit 
in  building.  The  hand  of  Fate  smites  it  if  it 
tries  to  construct  another  tower  of  Babel,  which, 
however,  the  free,  Fate-compelling  man  must 
aspire  to  erect. 

The  old,  transmitted  wall,  hoary  with  its 
thousands  of  years,  and  grown  altogether  too 
weak  in  the  knees  to  upbear  the  new  spirit  of 
Architecture,  must  be  overhauled  from  the  bot- 
tom,   reconstructed  and  rejuvenated.     Wherein 


554  ABOHITECTUBE  —  EUROPEAN. 

this  lies  has  already  been  set  forth  quite  fully 
(see  Introduction),  but  may  be  again  briefly  in- 
dicated. The  wall  has  always  had  two  duties 
(and  sometimes  more)  :  the  space-enclosing  and 
the  burden-bearing.  It  must  surround  room 
within,  and  also  must  support  the  weight  of  the 
'roof  and  its  own.  This  double  character  of  the 
wall  had  always  within  itself  some  sort  of  a  con- 
flict. For  its  down-bearinor  element  mi^ht  be- 
come  so  great  as  to  crush  it  to  the  earth ;  then 
of  course  its  enclosing  power  was  also  at  an  end. 
Thus  through  all  European  construction  the  one 
duty  of  the  wall  continually  threatened  and  often 
collided  with  the  other.  When  this  collision  be- 
came acute,  Architecture  itself  would  perish, 
since  its  very  nature  is  space-enclosing,  and  the 
overborne  wall  can  no  longer  enclose  space.  In 
the  Renascence  specially,  the  constructive  limita- 
tion of  the  old  wall  forced  itself  upon  the  mind 
with  no  small  emphasis,  and  brought  to  light  a 
new  form  of  the  European  dualism. 

The  solution  of  the  difficulty  is  that  the  wall 
of  the  High  Building  has  a  steel  (or  iron)  skele- 
ton whose  single  duty  is  that  of  support  by 
means  of  the  strongest  material,  while  the  duty  of 
enclosing  is  assigned  to  wholly  different  material 
suitable  for  that  purpose  alone.  Thus  the  two 
conflicting  functions  do  not  encumber  each  other 
in  the  new  wall  of  the  High  Buildmg;  the  bur- 
den-bearing   principle    does    its   part,    and   the 


THE  OCCIDENTAL   TYPE.  555 

same  may  be  said  of  the  enclosing  principle  (see 
a  fuller  account  on  preceding  pp.  11-13). 

The  question  comes  up,  How  shall  this  outside 
surface  be  organized  in  forms  which  will  be 
artistic,  that  is,  which  will  represent  the  inner 
spirit  and  purpose  of  the  structure?  The  High 
Building  is  not  merely  story  on  story,  one  placed 
on  the  top  of  the  other  like  a  pile  of  boxes.  A 
fagade  arranged  in  such  a  way  becomes  oppressive 
through  its  horizontalism,  and  contradicts  the 
character  of  the  whole  structure,  which  should 
mount  upward  on  vertical  lines  in  accord  with 
the  inner  framework.  Hence  the  best  outside 
ornament  is  the  pilaster  which  carries  the  eye  up 
along  the  line  of  support,  often  terminating  in  a 
round  arch  above.  This  form  seems  to  have 
been  taken  from  the  Arabian  Architecture  of 
Sicily. 

Still  with  such  a  device  alone,  the  surface  is 
too  monotonous.  The  most  successful  facades 
have  a  lower  part  or  base  which  shows  connec- 
tion with  the  earth  in  its  forms ;  then  comes  the 
middle  portion  with  its  special  grouping  and 
ornamentation ;  finally  is  the  cap  or  head  resting 
on  arches  usually,  and  having  its  own  distinctive 
organism.  Such  are  the  three  horizontal  divi- 
sions,  which  are  still  further  divided  vertically 
into  three  divisions,  making  nine  compartments 
in  all.  This  is,  of  course,  the  barest  outline 
which  is  to  be  filled  out  with  the  architectural 


556  AB  CHITE  G  T  URE  —  EUB  OPE  AN. 

expression  of  the  ages,  and  the  latter  is  likewise 
to  be  borne  up  by  the  High  Building.  But  the 
present  part  of  the  problem  has  not  yet  been 
adequately  solved.  The  architects  of  the  High 
Building  have  never  been  able  to  work  out  an 
entirely  satisfactory  fagade;  they  have  shown 
themselves  better  engineers  than  artists.  The 
large  amount  of  surface  is  embarrassing,  and 
cannot  be  filled  by  merely  following  precedent. 
The  new  Type  must  have  its  own  expression. 

The  High  Building  is  a  secular  structure,  and 
is  more  particularly  the  Home  of  Business,  of 
the  socio-economic  Institution.  It  houses  a  large 
society,  often  a  considerable  city.  Its  most 
direct  antecedent  is  the  Palazzo  of  the  Renas- 
cence; it  is  built  around  a  kind  of  court  which, 
however,  is  roofed  over,  and  contains  the  stair- 
case and  also  the  substitute  for  the  same,  the 
elevator.  But  their  chief  common  element  lies 
in  the  many  storys,  wherein  is  also  manifested 
their  great  difference,  which  deepens  to  a  differ- 
ence of  Types.  The  Palazzo  pushing  upward  in 
response  to  its  own  spirit,  transcends  its  con- 
structive principle,  and  calls  for  a  new  one, 
which  shows  itself  in  the  High  Building. 

We  have  repeatedly  noticed  that  architectural 
forms  which  are  constructive  in  one  style,  are 
surpassed  and,  so  to  speak,  conquered  by  the 
following  style,  which  reduces  them  to  a  decor- 
ation.    So  the  Greek  Colump  became  an  orna- 


THE  OCCIDENTAL    TYPE.  557 

merit  of  the  Roman  Arch,  which  was  itself  often 
made  ornamental  of  the  wall  in  later  Architec- 
ture. A  similar  history  may  be  traced  in  the 
Dome.  But  the  High  Building  as  supremely 
upbearing  takes  all  the  architectural  forms  of 
Europe,  Column  and  Architrave,  Arch  and 
Dome,  and  carries  (or  may  carry)  them  on  its 
framework  for  its  own  decoration.  The  whole 
constructive  element  as  supporting,  lies  in  that 
hidden  skeleton  of  steel ;  the  Architecture  of 
the  past  has  little  else  to  do  except  to  orna- 
ment it  on  the  outside,  thus  giving  to  it  a  con- 
structive expression.  All  Styles  must  be  em- 
ployed for  the  decoration  of  the  High  Building, 
when  it  is  complete,  which  is  not  at  present  the 
case.  An  association  of  Styles,  Periods,  Types 
we  may  yet  see  on  its  facade,  each  with  its  full 
individuality,  yet  federated  into  a  Union  like  the 
Federal. -^  Europe  has,  indeed,  developed  the 
particular  forms  of  Architecture,  which  we  have 
sought  to  trace  in  their  vast  variety,  as  they 
hover  about  the  enclosing  wall,  outside,  inside, 
and  in  it.  But  now  this  enclosing  wall  itself  is 
picked  up  with  all  its  encompassing  shapes, 
being  liberated  from  its  onerous  task  of  support, 
and  performing  the  one  duty  of  enclosure. 
Thus  it  is  unified,  and  this  unity  is  the  basis  of 
uniting  all  particular  Styles  into  one  universal 
Style. 

Each  of  these  ^^rticular  Styles  has  ended,  in 


558  ARCBITECTUBE  —  EUBOPEAIf. 

the  past,  through  its  limitation  and  insufficiency, 
being  crushed  at  last  through  the  down-bearing 
principle  over  which  it  was  at  first  triumphant. 
But  it  dared  beyond  its  strength,  it  transgressed 
its  fated  limit  and  the  blow  descended.  So  the 
Greek  Architrave,  so  the  Roman  Arch,  so  the 
Gothic  Arch,  so  finally  the  Italian  Palazzo. 
The  History  of  Architecture  is  strown  with  these 
tragedies  of  particular  Styles.  But  now,  each  of 
these,  with  its  own  special  field  recognized  and 
also  its  iimit  marked  out,  is  (or  is  to  be)  feder- 
ated into  a  universal  Style  corresponding  to  and 
representing  its  institutional  world.  The  down- 
bearing  principle,  hitherto  the  Fate  of  the  par- 
ticular Style,  can  no  longer  smite  it,  being 
wholly  removed  from  the  Enclosure  in  which  the 
Style  now  manifests  itself,  and  being  assigned  to 
a  separate  constructive  organism. 

Such  is  the  liberation  of  the  Enclosure,  in 
harmony  with  a  new  liberation  of  man.  The 
building  seems  to  get  on  its  feet  for  the  first 
time  and  to  stand  erect,  though  it  has  struggled 
to  do  so  all  through  the  ages.  The  Gothic 
Church  threw  up  its  arms  and  fingers  toward 
Heaven,  though  its  body  still  lay  on  the  ground ; 
the  Italian  Palazzo  even  reared  its  body  but  could 
not  extend  itself  to  its  full  stretch  upward  with- 
out meetino^  the  blow  of  Fate.  But  when  the 
wall  is  relieved  of  the  burden  of  support  and 
confined  to  enclosure,  the  building  seems  to  go 


THE  OCCIDENTAL  TYPE.  559 

up  of  itfjelf,  without  buttress,  or' flying-buttress 
or  pier. 

But  is  there  no  Fate  lurking  in  the  High  Build- 
ing also?  More  than  likely.  It  too  is  finite 
and  hence  exposed  to  the  tragedy  of  all  finitude. 
The  steel  skeleton  is  certainly  assailable ;  already 
we  hear  of  electrolysis,  and  we  can  think  of  earth- 
quakes. But  it  has  yet  to  develop  its  specially 
fateful  character  and  to  reveal  its  tragic  limita- 
tion. It  meets  the  problem  of  the  old  Architec- 
tures, but  it  doubtless  has  its  own  problem. 
Shakespeare  has  his  fate  as  well  as  Sophocles, 
though  the  two  be  very  different ;  Hamlet  with 
a  far  wider  range  of  freedom  than  Oedipus  can 
just  as  little  escape  his  destiny.  The  High 
Building,  though  up-bearing  for  all  past  archi- 
tectural forms,  is  down-bearing  in  itself,  is 
determined  by  the  earth  and  can  fall  when  its 
support  is  assailed  and  gives  way.  That  inexor- 
able terrestrial  gravity  which  at  last  limited  and 
bore  down  every  sort  of  previous  construction, 
is  also  lying  in  wait  for  the  High  Building. 
What  then?  Man,  the  Ego,  the  builder,  maybe 
temporarily  caught  in  the  ruins  of  his  own  falling 
structure,  but  he,  the  limit-transcending.  Fate- 
compelling,  will  again  extricate  himself,  as  he 
has  always  done  hitherto,  and,  raising  a  new  and 
stronger  bulwark  against  the  lurking  foe,  will 
erect  another  and  Hiorher  Buildino:. 

But   these  outlooks  run  far  in  advance  of  our 


560  ABCHITEOTURE  —  EUROPEAN. 

theme,  'and  need  trouble  us  no  further.  The 
truth  is  the  world  has  not  yet  come  up  to  the 
High  Building,  and  will  be  apparently  a  long 
time  in  overtaking  it.  Criticism  judges  the 
work  by  transmitted  standards;  what  if  it  be 
the  very  essence  of  the  building  to  transcend  the 
past?  If  a  cultivated  Egyptian  had  visited 
Athens  and  seen  the  Parthenon,  he  would  have 
pronounced  it  a  hideous  botch,  because  the 
columns  stood  outside  the  walls  instead  of  in- 
side,  as  in  Egypt.  If  Ictinus,  the  architect  of 
the  Parthenon,  could  have  peeped  through  the 
centuries  at  the  Roman  Pantheon,  he  would  have 
shuddered  at  its  barbarism,  and  spoken  of  it  as 
the  European  architect  speaks  of  the  High 
Building  at  present.  All  of  which  means  that 
individual  criticism  according  to  accepted  stand- 
ards cannot  go  very  far  in  ascertaining  the  worth 
of  an  original  work  of  Art. 

This  original  work  of  Art  is  what  determines 
criticisim,  criticism  cannot  determine  it,  simply 
because  it  is  original.  Secondary  works  may  be 
amenable  to  the  transmitted  critical  standards. 
The  High  Building  draws  from  the  primal  foun- 
tain of  originality,  and  is  to  be  appreciated  in  its 
own  right.  It  was  called  forth  by  a  new  institu- 
tional Order,  which  in  the  past  was  also  the 
primal  source  of  the  Greek  Temple,  the  Roman 
Arch,  and  the  Romanic  Church.  Let  it  be 
repeated  here  for  the  last  time  that  Architecture 


THE  OCCIDENTAL  TYPE.  561 

builds  the  home  of  Institutions,  as  they  have 
developed  through  History.  The  Aesthetic  of, 
the  architectonic  Art  has  primarily  to  unfold  and 
to  bring  to  consciousness  this  connection. 

But  Institutions  in  their  turn  are  the  product  of 
a  still  deeper,  more  universal  process  than  their 
own,  of  which  process  we  have  endeavored  to 
give  glimpses  throughout  the  present  exposition. 
The  movement  of  the  absolute  Self,  of  the  All- 
Ego  (Pampsychosis)  is  ultimately  the  creative 
principle  of  Architecture  working  through  the 
Social  Institutions  of  Man.  These  Institutions 
in  their  total  historic  sweep  we  now  see 
to  be  universally  psychical,  or  pampsychical, 
revealing  their  deepest  process  as  triune  in  the 
three  supreme  stages  —  Oriental,  European,  and 
Occidental.  It  is  this  triune  process  which  is 
the  constructive  one  of  the  Universe,  and 
which  all  other  construction  must  follow  in  its 
creative  archetypal  pattern,  in  all  its  divisions 
largest  and  least."  In  so  far  as  there  is  an 
Order,  the  Small  must  reflect  the  All,  whereof 
the  Order  of  Architecture  is  a  single  but  striking 
instance. 

36 


Kfiep  this  Catalogue  for  Reference. 

Note  reduction  in  price. 

WORKS  BY  DENTON  J.  SNIDER 

PUBLISHED  BY 

SIGMA  PUBLISHING  COMPANY, 

210  Pine  Street,  St.  Louis,  Mo. 

I.  Commentary  on  the  Literary  Bibles,  in  9  vols. 

1.  Shakespeare's  Dramas,  3  vols. 

Tragedies  (new  edition),  .  .  $1.50 

Comedies  (new  edition),  .  .  1.50 

.  Histories  (new  edition),  .  .  1.50 

2.  Goethe's  Faust. 

First  Part  (new  edition),     .        .       1.50 
Second  Part  (new  edition),         .        1.50 

3.  Homer's  Iliad  (new  edition),         .       1.50 

"        Odyssey,  .         .         .  1.50 

i.  Dante's  Inferno,     ....  1.50 

'♦         Purgatory  and  Paradise,  1.50 

II.  Psychology. 

1.  Psychology  and  the  Psychosis,  .  1.50 

2.  The  Will  and  its  World,        .  .  1.50 

3.  Social  Institutions,         .         .  .  1.50 
i.  The  State,       .      ^  .         .         .  .  1.50 

5.  Ancient  European  Philosophy,       .        1.50 

6.  Modern  European  Philosophy,       .       1.50 

III.  Kindergarden. 

1.  Commentary  on  Froebel's  Mother 

Play-Songs,  ....        1.25 

2.  The  Psychology  of  Froebel's  Play- 

Gifts,    1.25 

3.  The  Life  of  Frederick  Froebel,      .       1.25 

IV.  Poems  — in  5  vols. 

1.  Homer  in  Chios,     . 

2.  Delphic  Days, 

3.  Agamemnon's  Daughter, 

4.  Prorsus  Retrorsus, 

5.  Johnny  Appleseed's  Rhymes, 

V.  Miscellaneous. 

1.  A  Walk  in  Hellas, 

2.  The  Freeburgers  (a  novel), 

3.  World's  Fair  Studies,    . 
For  sale  by  A.   C.  M'Clurg  &  Co.,  Booksellers, 

Chicago,  Ills.,  to  whom  the  trade  is  referred. 

(OTBa.) 


1.00 
l.CO 
1.00 
1.00 
1.25 

1.25 
1.25 
1.26 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 

Return  to  desk  from  which  borrowed. 
This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below. 


FEB  16  19*8 
FEB   18  1948 


c;r.'    ,,.;■ 


30iunM'  • 


12Dec'5RNV 


HO^ 


%i  \9B'i 


SJCApr't-B. 
RECD  LD 

APR  30  I960 

RECD  LD 

JUL  2  2  1963 


LD  21-100m-9,'47(A5702sl6)476 


>Cf(6840 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


